Contact Us

Follow Us

Free Consultation

ATTORNEYS DETAIL

LARRY SANDELL

  • Position: ATTORNEY AT LAW
  • Experience:
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Email: lsandell@meimark.com
  • Phone: 888-860-5678 x717
Contact:

Biography

Larry Sandell, a registered patent attorney, focuses his practice on counseling clients on strategic Intellectual Property matters; drafting and prosecuting patent applications; litigating patent infringement and other matters in federal district courts and the International Trade Commission; arguing federal appeals; and handling patent-related Amazon.com take-down disputes. Mr. Sandell has a passion for advising start-ups and other innovative companies on Intellectual Property matters—and focuses on consumer electronics, medical device, food science, software, and cannabis technology areas. He has argued in the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and D.C. Circuit.

 

Mr. Sandell heads Mei & Mark’s cannabis law practice. He frequently presents on the intersection of IP and the cannabis business to both IP attorneys and cannabis industry participants.  He is also frequently quoted in media on related topics, including by Forbes and Marijuana Moment. Additionally, Mr. Sandell is an integral component of  Mei & Mark’s grIP Venture Studio, which offers wide-ranging legal expertise for start-ups, emerging companies, and VCs.

 

Prior to joining Mei & Mark LLP, Mr. Sandell worked as an attorney at the Washington, D.C., office of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP. There, his legal practice focused on patent litigation in both U.S. District Courts and before the International Trade Commission, patent drafting and prosecution, reexamination preparation, opinion work, and client counseling in various electrical and mechanical technology areas.

 

Representative Cases

U.S. Courts of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court
  • In re: Joy Tea Inc., No. 2022-1041 (Federal Circuit) (Lead Counsel)(appeal of Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruling that intent-to-use trademark applicants are legally precluded from having a bona fide intent to use their mark in future commerce anticipated to be legal)
  • Trimble Inv. et al v. PerDiemCo LLC, 997 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Lead counsel and presented oral argument) (question of personal jurisdiction in patent declaratory judgment case).
  • Swagway, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 934 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Presented oral argument).
  • ATEN Int’l Co. v. Uniclass Tech. Co., 932 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019)  (Presented oral argument and revived client’s invalidated patent).
  • ATEN Int’l Co. v. Uniclass Tech. Co., 932 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
  • United States v. AT&T Inc. et al., No. 2018-5214 (DC Circuit) (Represented proposed amicus curiae Cinémoi North America as local counsel).
  • Segway, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2018-1556 (Federal Circuit).
  • Drop Stop LLC v. Zhu, 757 F. App’x 994 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
  • Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co., 790 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
  • Daewoo Electronics America Inc. v. Opta Corporation et al, No. 17-1421 (U.S. Supreme Court) (Petition for Certiorari filed).
  • Razor USA LLC et al. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2017-2591 (Federal Circuit) (Represented Intervenor Swagway, LLC).
  • Triple Up Limited v. Youku Tudou Inc., No. 17-7033 (DC Circuit) (presented oral argument) (question of internet-related personal jurisdiction in copyright infringement case).
  • Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC, v. DISH Network L.L.C., Sirius XM Radio Inc., Nos. 2016-2468, -2492 -2186 (Federal Circuit) (Appeal of PTAB finding of invalidity in inter partes review review no. IPR2015-00499).
  • Adrian Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2016-1841 (Federal Circuit) (represented Intervenor Solofill, LLC and presented oral argument for affirmance of ITC determination of no violation).
  • Daewoo Electronics America Inc. v. Opta Corporation et al., No. 2014-17498 (9th Circuit) (Represented appellees Opta Corp. et al concerning claim preclusion issue and presented oral argument).
  • Creative Kingdoms, LLC. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2014-1072 (Federal Circuit) (Appeal of Section 337 Determination).
  • Hinkle v. Shinseki, No. 2011-7094 (Federal Circuit) (Appeal of Veterans’ Claims decision) (Pro bono).
U.S. District Court Litigation
  • LG Electronics Inc. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, No. 1:21-CV-2600 (N.D. Ill.) (defending group of after-marked refrigerator filter sellers in patent infringement case).
  • JUUL Labs., Inc. v. Andy Chou et. al, No. 2:21-cv-03056 (C.D. Cal.) (Representing online sellers in trademark infringement defense).
  • E-Z Ink Inc., et al. v. Brother Industries, Ltd., No. 1:21-cv-01109 (E.D. Va) ( Representing sellers of after-market printer cartridges in seeking declaratory judgment of patent invalidity).
  • Brother Industries, Ltd. et al v. Linkyo Corp., No. 5:20-cv-02464 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (Successfully negotiated settlement of declaratory judgment suit on behalf of defendant prior to filing Answer).
  • Battery Conservation Innovations, LLC, v. Adesso, Inc., No 1:20-cv-00463-CFC (D. Del. 2020) (Successfully negotiated dismissal of patent infringement complaint without filing a response or any settlement by defendant).
  • Microsoft Corp et al. v. Hon Hai d/b/a Foxconn Tech. Group, No 5:19-cv-01279-LHK (N.D. Cal) (Successfully represented Foxconn in patent license contact breach case through favorable settlement).
  • WiniaDaewoo Electronics America Inc. v. Opta Corporation et al., No. 13-cv-01247 (N.D. Cal.) (Successfully represented Opta and related parties in alter ego/ successor liability suit dismissed at summary judgment stage).
  • United States v. AT&T Inc. et al., No. 17-cv-2511 (D.D.C.) (Represented proposed amicus curiae Cinémoi North America as local counsel).
  • ATEN International Co., Ltd. v. Uniclass Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:15-cv-04424 (C.D. Cal.) (Patent infringement litigation).
  • Nader Asghari-Kamrani & Kamran Asghari-Kamrani v. United Services Automobile Association, No. 2:15-xv-00478 (E.D. Va, Norfolk Division) (Represented independent inventors in patent infringement suit).
  • Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Insulet Corporation, No. 10-4371 (D. N.J)(2014) (Patent infringement suit).
  • Boston Scientific Corp. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, No. 1:11-cv-0736 (S.D. Ind.) (2012) (Patent licensing dispute).
U.S. International Trade Commission Section 337 Investigations
  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1139, Certain Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Components Thereof.
  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors.
  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1107, Certain LED Lighting Devices and Components Thereof.
  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1000, Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles.
  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-974, Certain Aquarium Fittings and Parts Thereof.
  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-967, Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith.
  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-876, Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS Devices) and Products Containing Same (represented subpoenaed third party in challenging discovery subpoena).
  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-770, Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers and Components Thereof (represented Complainant Creative Kingdoms LLC in suit against Nintendo).
  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-658, Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices (represented Complainant Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. in suit against Nintendo).
  • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-726, Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (represented Respondent Research In Motion, Ltd. (RIM) in suit brought by Flashpoint Technology Inc.).
Other Litigation Matters
  • In re: Joy Tea Inc., Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) Appeal , Application Serial No.: 88640009 (appealing refusal to publish ITU (intent to use) Trademark on CBD beverage because such goods would currently run afoul of the Food Drug & Cosmetics Act).
  • Brother Kogoyo Kobushi Kaisha v. E-Z Ink, GPC Image, et al, Amazon Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation Process Case No. 7526927771 (represented sellers of printer cartridges in Amazon dispute).
  • Brother Kogoyo Kobushi Kaisha v. Effectrust et al, Amazon Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation Process Case No. 7683452351 (represented sellers of printer cartridges in Amazon dispute).
  • Brother Kogoyo Kobushi Kaisha v. Effectrust, E-Z Ink,  Linkyo Corp, Amazon Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation Process Case No. 7121605801 (represented sellers of printer cartridges in Amazon dispute).
  • FIH Co. Ltd v. Arcsoft, Inc., AAA Case No. 01-20-0007-3084  (Successfully represented claimant, a Foxconn subsidiary, in patent licensing dispute through favorable settlement).
  • Robinson v. International House of Pancakes, No. 09-042009 (Circuit. Ct of 17th Dist., Broward County, Florida, Fifth Dist.)  (Successfully represented plaintiff in tort case through favorable settlement).
  • Carter v. Panero, No. 2012 E 0004178 H (D.C. Superior Court) (landlord-tenant matter) (pro bono).
  • Rivera-Martinez v. Shinseki, No. 12-3613 (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) (pro bono).
  • Moore v. Shinseki, No. 12-617 (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) (pro bono).
  • Dowling v. Shinseki, No. 09-817 (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) (pro bono).
  • Hinkle v. Shinseki, No. 09-515 (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) (pro bono).

Select Publications and Presentations

Education

  • J.D., with high honors, Order of the Coif, George Washington University Law School
  • B.S.E., with distinction, Biomedical and Electrical Engineering, Duke University

Bar Admissions

  • California
  • District of Columbia
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • U.S. Supreme Court

Professional Recognition

Recognized in the Washington, DC “Rising Stars” list for Intellectual Property Litigation, Super Lawyers magazine (2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019).

Contact LARRY SANDELL