- 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., firstname.lastname@example.org)
|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.
International Trade Commission
•Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) - Represents complainant in an investigation involving technologies relating to messaging, telephony, computing, and networking.
•Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) - Represented complainant in investigation involving technologies related to LCD panels, central processor units, graphics processing units, and other microprocessor technologies. All respondents were successfully licensed.
Federal District Courts
•Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Humedica, Inc. (D. Del.) - Represents defendant in pending patent infringement action; patents-in-suit relate to the processing of electronic health records.
•Polartec LLC, et al. v. Lamour Global, Inc. (D. Mass.) - Defended patent infringement action involving patents covering fleece fabric. Case settled on favorable terms.
•Cardsoft (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC v. The Gores Group, LLC, et al. (E.D. Texas) - Defended patent infringement action involving patents related to electronic point-of-sale systems. Case settled on favorable terms.
• Mintz Levin Files Amicus Brief in Pivotal First Amendment Case, Elonis v. United States, (10.07.2014)
•Co-author, Supreme Court Upholds Brulotte Rule Prohibiting Post-Expiration Patent Royalties, Intellectual Property Alert (06.23.2015)
•Co-author, ALJ Essex Elaborates an Evidence-Based Framework for Adjudicating the FRAND Defense, Intellectual Property Alert (06.11.2015)
•Co-author, Belief That a Patent Is Invalid Is Not a Defense to Inducement Liability, Intellectual Property Alert (05.28.2015)
•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)
|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
Writing on Her Own Behalf, Chairwoman Ramirez Takes a Position on FRAND
Sandra J. Badin,Robert J. Moore,Michael T. Renaud, July 30, 2015
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez took the unusual step on July 13, 2015, of filing a written submission on her own behalf — and expressly not on behalf of her agency — in Investigation No. 337-TA-613, Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (the 613...
FRAND Defense: ALJ Essex Provides an Evidence-Based Framework
Sandra J. Badin,Robert J. Moore,Michael T. Renaud, June 26, 2015
Administrative Law Judge Essex has made another important contribution to the ongoing conversation regarding the enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) at the International Trade Commission.
Supreme Court Upholds Brulotte Rule Prohibiting Post-Expiration Patent Royalties
Sandra J. Badin,Richard G. Gervase,Bruce D. Sokler, June 25, 2015
On June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, upholding the rule, first announced in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U. S. 29 (1964), that an agreement allowing a patent owner to collect royalty payments after a patent’s expiration is unlawful per...
|Profile Visibility |
|#164 in weekly profile views out of 20,444 lawyers in Boston, Massachusetts|
|#15,441 in weekly profile views out of 1,711,087 total lawyers Overall|