- Intellectual Property
- Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation
- Valuation & Assessment
|Contact Info||Telephone: 617.348.1604|
Internet: Each Attorney's Internet Address takes the following form: first initial, last name @mintz.com (e.g., email@example.com)
|University ||University of Toronto, B.A.; York University, M.A.; Columbia University, M.Phil.|
|Law School||Harvard University, J.D.|
|Admitted||Massachusetts; New York; US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|
Sandra has broad experience litigating patents before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the US International Trade Commission, and the federal district courts. She has represented clients in a wide range of technology fields, including telecommunications and handheld devices, LCD displays, graphics processing units, medical records processing, electronic point-of-sale systems, high-density plasma cutting torches, dental materials and processes, specialty fabrics, and financial and business methods. Sandra also maintains an active pro bono practice and has co-authored amicus briefs to the United States Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of state and national domestic violence organizations.
While in law school, Sandra held an Edmond J. Safra Graduate Fellowship in Ethics at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and served as a judicial extern to Justice Lorene B. Ferguson of the Navajo Nation Supreme Court. She also served as a teaching and research assistant to several of her law school professors, and as a senior thesis adviser to several undergraduates at Harvard College.
•Co-author, Patent Hold-Up or Patent Hold-Out? Judge Essex Adds His Voice to the SEP-FRAND Debate, Intellectual Property Alert (07.10.2014)
• Co-author, Computer Implementation Not Enough to Render Abstract Ideas Patent Eligible, Intellectual Property Alert (06.20.2014)
• Co-author, Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Decisions in Two Important Patent Cases: What Do This Week's Limelight and Nautilus Decisions Mean for You?, Intellectual Property Alert (06.06.2014)
• Author, IP Law - Supreme Court, Recent Developments in Business and Corporate Litigation, published by the American Bar Association (2014)
•Mintz Levin Files Amicus Brief in Pivotal First Amendment Case, Elonis v. United States, (10.07.2014)
|Reported Cases||Representative Matters: Federal Circuit: Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O (Fed. Cir. 15-212) - Retained after an adverse ruling before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review petition, Sandra represents the patent owner in the pending appeal.; Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co. (Fed. Cir. 2009-1403, -1491) - Retained after an adverse jury verdict, Sandra represented the defendant-appellant insurance company in an appeal involving business method patents, and assisted her team in obtaining reversal of the $13 million judgment.; PSN Illinois, Inc. v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2007-1512) - Sandra represented defendant-appellee manufacturer of dental materials and processes and assisted her team in obtaining affirmance of the lower court's grant of summary judgment of no infringement.|
Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com
Patent Hold-Up or Patent Hold-Out? Judge Essex Adds His Voice to the SEP-FRAND Debate
Sandra J. Badin,Michael T. Renaud,James Wodarski, July 18, 2014
Administrative Law Judge Essex recently issued the public version of his Initial Determination in ITC investigation No. 337-TA-868, ruling that the respondents are precluded from relying on the defense that the patent holder is required to license the patents-in-suit on fair, reasonable and...
Computer Implementation Not Enough to Render Abstract Ideas Patent Eligible
Sandra J. Badin,Richard G. Gervase,Michael T. Renaud, June 27, 2014
The Supreme Court yesterday issued its long-awaited decision in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International addressing the patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions under 35 USC §101. The Court’s unanimous decision affirms the Federal Circuit’s holding that all the...
|Profile Visibility |
|#415 in weekly profile views out of 20,019 lawyers in Boston, Massachusetts|
|#32,703 in weekly profile views out of 1,684,342 total lawyers Overall|