Source: https://www.glaserweil.com/print/823
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:33:49+00:00

Document:
United States Merchant Marine Academy, B.S.
Glaser Weil Partner and Intellectual Property Department Chair Lawrence "Larry" M. Hadley represents a wide range of technology-industry clients; specializing his practice in patents, copyrights, and trade secrets.
Mr. Hadley's extensive experience includes intellectual property and complex litigation cases involving computer hardware and software, integrated circuit and processor design, wireless communications, medical devices, Internet communications, compression, and storage. His proficiency in technology has led him to appear in courts across the country and before the United States International Trade Commission (USITC).
Rovi Corp. v. Comcast. Represents Rovi in various district court and International Trade Commission matters involving patents relating to set top boxes and interactive program guide technology. Representation included two trials before the USITC.
ABS v. CBS, et al. Represents ABS and other owners of “pre-1972” sound recordings for violation of California law relating to unlicensed terrestrial and Internet simulcast performances. Obtained favorable decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming that digital remasters remained pre-1972 sound recordings governed by state law.
Good Technology Corporation v. MobileIron Inc. Represented Good Technology Corporation in against MobileIron, Inc., in which the parties—competitors in the mobile device management software field—asserted patent infringement claims against either other. Following a two week jury trial, the parties reached a confidential settlement.
PersonalWeb Technologies v. EMC, et al. Represents a web technology company in 12 cases involving distributed computing patents in the Eastern District of Texas and Northern District of California. The cases assert the patents against back-up, archiving, and cloud storage products and services. As part of representation, Larry assists in defense of separate IPR proceedings, including a successful Federal Circuit appeal. Larry has reached settlements in a number of the cases.
Optis Wireless Technology LLC. v. ZTE Corporation. Currently represents Optis Wireless Technology and PanOptis Management LLC (owners of certain Ericsson and Panasonic wireless technology patents) in a patent infringement against ZTE Corporation.
UUSI LLC d/b/a/ Nartron v. Samsung Electronics Co and Apple, Inc. Larry is lead trial counsel for Nartron, an early pioneer in touchscreen technology, in a pending patent infringement action against Samsung involving tablet touchscreens. Matters include Federal Circuit appeal from an IPR decision upholding validity of the patent at issue.
Uniloc v. CompuLink Business Systems, et al. Represented Uniloc in 12 consolidated patent infringement actions involving electronic patient health care records. Most cases were settled for confidential amounts after receiving favorable claim construction rulings.
Represented manufacturer of theme park rides in patent infringement action involving digital control technology against a major theme park. Case settled shortly before trial.
DealerTrack v. Finance Express. Larry was engaged for trial to defend patent infringement matter after district court denied summary judgment motions. He persuaded the court to allow an additional motion challenging patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. After receiving permission, Larry prevailed on the motion and successfully upheld the decision before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ultramercial v. WildTangent. Represents owner of internet advertising and content distribution patent against patent-eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in multiple appeals to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court. Successfully settled infringement claims against several defendants and negotiated license agreements.
California Table Grape Commission v. Sandrini Farms. Larry was retained as lead trial counsel to defend a Central Valley farming company against allegations of infringement over a table grape patent. During trial, he achieved an amicable settlement.
Delano v. California Table Grape Commission:. Represented a group of California table grape farmers challenging the validity of three table grapevine patents owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Larry prevailed before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in establishing, in a case of first impression, that sovereign immunity does not bar lawsuits against the United States seeking to invalidate federally-owned patents that have been exclusively licensed to private entities for sub-licensing.
Ronald A. Katz Technology v. General Motors, et. al. Represented Ronald A. Katz Technology in actions against General Motors and others involving the Katz interactive call processing patents. Mr. Katz is recognized as one of the most successful inventors in U.S. history and holds more than 50 call processing patents. Larry assisted in reaching confidential settlements.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al. Represented Sharman Networks, distributor of the Kazaa Media Desktop, in multiple copyright infringement matters in both the United States and Australia over alleged liability for the distribution of “peer-to-peer” software. After extensive discovery in the U.S., Australia, and Europe, and a four-week trial in Australia, the cases reached a global settlement.
Golden Bridge Technologies v. Apple, et al. Larry was lead trial counsel for Golden Bridge in patent litigation involving standard essential 3G patents asserted against wireless smart phones.
Joltid Limited v. Skype Technologies S.A. Represented Joltid Limited in major litigation involving the copyright to software underlying the Skype Internet telephony application and service. After filing an extensive complaint, the parties reached a business resolution of both the copyright litigation and a parallel U.K. arbitration.
Rodime PLC v. Seagate Technology Inc. After reversal and remand from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, engaged by Seagate to defend against infringement claims on Rodime’s patents covering three-inch “form factor” disk drives. Rodime sought hundreds of millions of dollars in reasonable royalty damages. Matter was resolved prior to trial.
StarSight Telecast Inc. v. General Instrument. In a three-judge arbitration in San Francisco, Larry represented StarSight Telecast in successfully securing an arbitration award against General Instrument in connection with a substantial trade-secret dispute involving electronic program guide technology.
Storage v. Xiotech and Seagate Technology LLC. Successfully represented Seagate Technology and its subsidiary, Xiotech Corporation, after Storage Computer Corporation filed suit for alleged infringement of a portfolio of RAID (Random Array of Independent Disks) patents. After asserting patent infringement counterclaims against Storage Computer, Larry assisted in resolving the matters in mediation.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.