Contact Us

Follow Us

Free Consultation

ATTORNEYS DETAIL

LARRY SANDELL

  • Position: ATTORNEY AT LAW
  • Experience:
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Email: [email protected]
  • 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: John L. Couvaras, No. 2022-1489, 70 F.4th 1374 (Federal Circuit) (Lead counsel and presented oral argument) (appeal of PTAB rejection of patent application).
  • 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

  • Johnson v. Onika Tanya Maraj p/k/a Nicki Minaj et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-05061-PA (C.D. Cal.) (representing copyright infringement plaintiff).

    • Shenzhen Happy Vaping Tech. Ltd., v. Logic Tech. Dev. LLC & Japan Tobacco Int’l. U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 0:22-CV-61407-SMITH (S.D. Fl.) (represented vaporizer patent infringement plaintiff through settlement).
    • Kendrick v. Hann, Case No. 1:19-cv-01642 (M.D. Pa.) (pro bono representation of plaintiff at jury trial in prisoner’s rights case).
    • E-Z Ink Inc., et al. v. Brother Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00564-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va.) (represented declaratory judgment plaintiffs in printer cartridge patent case relating to Amazon proceeding through settlement).
    • Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp. v. The Entities Identified in Schedule A, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-4679 (N.D. Ill.) (Successfully negotiated settlement on behalf of representated defendant prior to filing answer).
    • Yunda Health Tech. Tianjin Col., Ltd,. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-08504-JWG (MAAx) (C.D. Cal.) (represented declaratory judgment plaintiffs in water filter patent case relating to Amazon proceeding and obtained early settlement).
  • LG Electronics Inc., et al. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, No. 1:21-CV-2600 (N.D. Ill.) (defended group of after-market 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-1392, Certain Oil Vaporizing Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (defending Respondent ALD, Group Limited—vaporizer manufacturer for Stiiizy Inc.— against patent infringement complaint brought by PAX Labs, Inc). 

    • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1290, Certain Refrigerator Water Filtration Devices and Components Thereof.
    • ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1291 & -1292, Certain Replacement Automotive Lamps (represented Kia and Hyundai in design patent infringement case against after-market head light and tail light manufacturers).
  • 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

  • Jordim International, Inc. v. Pteris Global (USA) Inc.,  AAA Case No. 1-21-0016-3457 (lead counsel in contract dispute arbitration regarding construction of luggage carousels at Tampa, Fl. airport).

    • Hiller, PC v. Women Grow LLC, Index No. 653637/2022 (Supreme Court of New York, NYC) (defending woman-focussed cannabis industry group against former counsel regarding alleged unpaid legal bills). 
    • Huizhou Faith Electric Manufacture Co., Ltd, v. Procuru et al., Amazon Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation Process Case No. 12950357311 (successfully enforced GFCI patents against infringing sellers in Amazon dispute).
    • Brother Kogoyo Kobushi Kaisha v. Linkyo Corp., Amazon Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation Process Case No. 9346059031 (represented sellers of printer cartridges in Amazon dispute).
    • Brother Kogoyo Kobushi Kaisha v. Linkyo Corp. et al., Amazon Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation Process Case No. 9311404461 (represented sellers of printer cartridges in Amazon dispute).
  • 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

  • Faculty, “Potential Ethical Pitfalls in Representing State-Legal Cannabis Industry Cients” (CLE Ethics Credit approved in numerous jurisdictions) westlegaledcenter.com , Jan. 10, 2024.
  • Faculty, “Cannabis Industry Intellectual Property: IP Practice in the Slow Sunset of Federal Prohibition” (CLE Ethics Credit approved in numerous jurisdictions) westlegaledcenter.com , Dec. 20, 2023.
  • Faculty, “IP Strategies, Enforcement Considerations, and Potential Pitfalls in the Cannabis Industry 2023 (Cannabis Law Series – Part Three),” DC Bar Association, Dec., 18, 2023.
  • Co-Presenter, “In re JOY TEA and Cannabis Trademarks.” NYC Bar Trademark Committee, Oct. 18, 2022.
  • Speaker, “Reading the Tea Leaves on Intellectual Property and Cannabis as Federal Prohibition Persists: In Re Joy Tea, Other Legal Developments, and Evolving Strategies for IP Procurement and Enforcement,” Cannabis Science Conference (Long Beach, CA) May 10, 2022.
  • Author, “GW And Canopy Agree: Canopy Can’t Win Its Cannabis Extraction Patent Infringement Case Under Judge’s Interpretation,” Marijuana Moment, LLC. March 2, 2022 (click here for link).
  • Author, “GW Pharma Scores Interim Victory In Cannabis Extraction Patent Infringement Fight With Canopy,” Marijuana Moment, LLC. Dec. 2, 2021 (click here for link).
  • Panelist, “Cannabis IP Litigation Update: An overview of recent cases and trends in cannabis intellectual property litigation, including patent, trademark, and trade secret, and a discussion on best practices for litigation cannabis IP matters.”, International Cannabis Bar Association (INCBA)  November 10, 2021 (2 PM ET).
  • Faculty, Cannabis Law Series: IP Strategies, Enforcement Considerations, and Potential Pitfalls in the Cannabis Industry, DC Bar association. November 3, 2021.
  • Faculty, “Representing Cannabis Industry Clients: IP Strategies and Attorney Ethics,” (CLE Ethics Credit approved in numerous jurisdictions) Lawline.com. October 14, 2021.
  • Speaker, “Evolving Intellectual Property Protections and Threats in the Cannabis Space,” 2021 Cannabis Science Conference East, Baltimore, MD, Sept. 15, 2021.
  • Speaker, “IP Strategies, Enforcement Considerations, and Potential Ethical Pitfalls in Virginia’s Anticipated (Quasi-)Legal Cannabis Industry,” (Approved for CLE Ethics Credit) (CLE credit not available from recorded presentation), Virginia State Bar, IP Section. May 11, 2021.
  • Co-Presenter, “Strategic and Technical IP Essentials for Entrepreneurs, Emerging Companies, & VCs,”  Defense Entrepreneurs Forum, December 16, 2021.
  • Author, “What 18 Months Of IPR Stats Teach Us About Winning Appeals”, Law360, July 20, 2020. Click here for a PDF copy.
  • Author, “Litigating FRAND Rates After Fed. Cir. Ericsson Decision,” Law360, Jan. 17, 2020. Click here for a PDF copy.
  • Author, “What Statistical Analysis Reveals About Winning IPR Appeals,” Law360, Aug. 8, 2019. Click here for a PDF copy.
  • Speaker on IP Issues, “BEVNET & NOSH Present: A Cannabis Forum For Food & Beverage,” New York, NY, June 14, 2019.
  • Speaker, “IP Strategies, Enforcement Considerations, and Potential Ethical Pitfalls in the Burgeoning (Quasi-)Legal Cannabis Industry,” New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association (NJIPLA): Ethics in IP Seminar. Iselin, NJ, Dec. 6, 2018.
  • Author, “What Cannabis Entrepreneurs Need To Know About Intellectual Property,” Marijuana Moment, LLC. June 14, 2018 (click here for link).
  • Speaker, “Best Intellectual Property Practices for Bringing New Textile Technology Product to Market: A Primer for Engineers, Business People, and Research Scientists,” Techtextil North America, Atlanta, GA, May 13, 2014.
  • Coauthor. “Why Not Throw in the Design of the Kitchen Sink?: The Tricks and Traps of Including Designs in Omnibus Patent Applications,” The Intellectual Property Strategist, Oct. 2013.
  • Coauthor. “Trademark Licensees May Be Barred from Challenging the Licensor’s Ownership of the Mark,” LES Insights, Oct. 24, 2011.
  • Coauthor. “Patent Licenses Are Presumed to Include Continuation Patents When Same Products Are at Issue,” LES Insights, Sept. 19, 2011.
  • Coauthor. “Cross License Agreements Had Only Tenuous Relevance to Determining Reasonably Royalty Damages and Were Not Required to Be Produced,” LES Insights, July 11, 2011.
  • Coauthor. “Declaratory Judgment Action Challenging Patent Validity and Infringement Was Dismissed Despite a Patent Owner’s Statement that the Plaintiff’s Product May Infringe Certain Patents,” LES Insights, May 16, 2011.
  • Coauthor. “Terminating a License Agreement Precludes Recovering Post-Judgment Royalties Under the Agreement,” LES Insights, March 14, 2011.
  • Coauthor. “Licensee Breaches License Agreement by Allowing Its Law Firm Access to the Licensed Technology,” LES Insights, Feb. 14, 2011.
  • Coauthor. “Judges Diverge on Use of Patent License Negotiations to Determine a Reasonable Royalty,” LES Insights, Dec. 6, 2010.
  • Coauthor. “A Proposal to Remove Uncertainty from Claims of Small Entity Status before the USPTO by Correcting and Enhancing SBA and USPTO Regulations,” Bloomberg Law Reports, Jan. 19, 2010.

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