Source: https://www.fr.com/lawrence-k-kolodney/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:20:46+00:00

Document:
Lawrence Kolodney specializes in handling complex intellectual property matters, including litigation, post-grant review, due diligence and counseling work, with particular emphasis on the technical fields of networking, power electronics, and software. Mr. Kolodney’s clients know him for providing highly responsive client service, his ability to quickly get to the core of highly complex technical matters, and his pragmatic approach to legal problem solving. He has litigated patent disputes in nearly every major patent venue across the country.
Outside of his day-to-day practice, Mr. Kolodney is proud to serve as the Chair of Fish’s pro bono program. Mr. Kolodney led the effort to revamp Fish & Richardson’s pro bono program in 2007. Over the following ten years, the firm saw a 10-fold increase in pro bono hours handled by attorneys.
Presented “Business Method Patents: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You” as a panelist at Massachusetts Software Council “Hot Topics” Program (1999).
“The Return of Opinions of Counsel in Patent Cases: How Recent Judicial Decisions Have Made Them Relevant Once More,” written with Daniel Sternberg, Fish Litigation Blog (July 6, 2018).
“Contingent Fee Litigation–A Low Risk Way to Enforce and Monetize Your Patents,” Corporate Counsel (October 23, 2017).
Named to the IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals list (2016-2018).
Selected by his peers to be included in The Best Lawyers in America for his work in the practice areas of Litigation-Intellectual Property and Litigation-Patent (since 2013).
Named as one of Boston’s “Forty Under Forty” by the Boston Business Journal (October 2002).
Lexington Luminance v. TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings (D.Mass. 2017-2018) – Defended Chinese manufacturer of flat screen TVs in case involving light emitting diodes. Case settled.
Atticus Research Corp. v. MMSoft Design Ltd. (S.D.Tex 2017-2018.) – Defended publisher of remote monitoring and management software. Successfully obtained order dismissing complaint on ground that asserted patent claims covered non-patentable subject matter. Case settled prior to appeal.
Regents of University of Minnesota v. AT&T et al. (D.Minn. 2014 – ) – Representing patentee Regents of the University of Minnesota in five patent case invovling digital encoding techniques for 4G wireless telephony. Case pending.
Blue Calypso, Inc. v. Groupon, Inc. et al. (E.D.Tex., 2015-2017) — Represented digital marketer Blue Calypso in case against multiple online marketing platforms including Groupon, FourSquare, and Yelp. Case settled.
Rembrandt Social Media LP v. Facebook et al. (E.D.Va., Federal Circuit & PTAB, 2013 -2017).— Represented plaintiff patentee in two patent case against Facebook and AddThis, Inc. Case included multiple appeals to Federal Circuit and PTAB patent challenges.
SynQor Inc. v. Vicor Corp. (E.D.Tex., 2011-) – Defending DC-DC power converter manufacturer Vicor Corporation in 5 patent case against competitor SynQor Corp. Case pending.
Auburn University v. IBM (M.D.Ala. 2009-2015) – Represented Auburn University in two patent case against IBM relating to semiconductor reliability testing algorithms.
Integrated Discrete Devices v. Diodes, Inc. (D.Del., 2008-2010) – Represented patentee Integrated Discrete Devices against major supplier of semiconductor devices asserting a patent relating to diode manufacturing techniques. Case settled.
American Superconductor Corp. v.S&C Electric (D. Mass., 2011-2013) – Represented American Superconductor in asserting two patents relating to manufacturer of power compensation devices for electric transmission lines against competitor. Case settled after claim construction ruling adopting AMSC’s positions.
VistaPrint Ltd. v. 123Print (D.Minn. 2007-2010) – Represented custom printer VistaPrint in asserting two patents against competitor 123Print. Patents related to website technology for online design of printed items.
Mallory Ventures v. Microsoft (D.Mass.,2006) – Defended Microsoft in case alleging infringement of patent relating to single-logon user ID technology. Case settled.
Achates Reference Publishing v. Microsoft (E.D.Tex. 2007-2008) – Defended Microsoft in case alleging infringement of patent relating to product unlocking technology. Case settled.
Insight Technology v. Glock (D.N.H., 2003-2007) – Represented tactical light manufacturer asserting patent for attaching auxiliary devices to weapons against major handgun manufacturer Glock GmbH. Case settled.
Insight Technology v. SureFire (D.N.H., 2004-2009) – Represented tactical light manufacturer asserting patent for attaching auxiliary devices to weapons against competitor SureFire LLC. Case settled.
AllVoice v. Nuance (S.D.Tex., 2002-2008) – Defended voice recognition software provider Nuance against patent infringement allegations relating to automatic dictation software. Obtained rare summary judgment of invalidity at the district court, based on violation of best mode requirement. Case settled after appeal.
Cannon Rubber v. The 1st Years (N.D.Ill., 2003-2006) – Defended manufacturer of maternal products against patent infringement allegations relating to breast pumps. Case settled.
Axeda Systems v. Questra (D.Mass., 2004-2005) – Represented software developer Axeda Systems in asserting patent related to embedded monitoring software for networked devices. Case settled.
Stambler v. First Data Corp. (D. Del., 2002-2003) – Defended major credit card servicer against patents relating to online secure transactions. Case settled.
Xcelera Inc. v. Speedera Networks (D. Del., 2003-2004) – Represented Xcelera Inc. and its subsidiary content delivery network provider Mirror Image Internet against competitor Speedera Networks, asserting . Case settled.
Kurzweil Educational Systems v. Freedom Scientific (D. Mass., 2004-2005) – Represented automatic reading machine innovator Kurzweil Educational Systems asserting two patents against competitor Freedom Scientific. Case settled.
Morton v. The First Years (E.D.Cal. & Federal Circuit, 2003-2005) – Defended manufacturer of child-care products in case involving infant sleep positioners. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringment, affirmed on appeal.
SeaChange International v. nCUBE (D. Del., 2000-2004) – Represented provider of video-on-demand server technology asserting patent on distributed storage technology.
K2 v. Benetton Group (W.D. Wash., 2000-2001) – Defended Benetton Group, and its subsidiary Rollerblade, Inc., in case asserting patent on design of in-line roller skates.
V-Formation v. Benetton Group (S.D.N.Y., 2002-2006) – Defended Benetton Group, and its subsidiary Rollerblade, Inc., in case asserting patent on design of in-line roller skates. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement, affirmed on appeal. Reported at 401. F.3d 1307.
Vicor Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. (D. Mass., 2000-2003) – Represented Vicor Corporation asserting patent on DC-DC power converter architecture. Case settled.
Vicor Corp. v. Unitrode (D. Mass., 1998-2001) – Represented Vicor Corporation asserting patent on DC-DC power converter architecture. Validity of client’s patent upheld in partial summary judgment and at trial. Reported at 130 F.Supp.2d 178.
Central Sprinkler v. Grinnell Corp. (E.D.Pa., 1998-1999) – Defended manufacturer of fire safety sprinklers in patent litigation. Case settled.
Harris Corp. v. Siemens AG (E.D.Va., 1997-1998) – Defended Siemens in patent litigation involving 26 patents related to DRAM integrated circuit design. Case settled after court granted partial summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity in favor of Siemens.
Aearo Corp. v. Howard S. Leight (D.Mass. 1996-1998) – Defended manufacturer of ear safety equipment in case asserting infringement of patent relating to earplug design. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement. Reported at 992 F.Supp. 463.
Aastra Technologies Ltd. v. Jones (D.N.H., 2003-2005) – Represented Canadian telecom equipment manufacturer in trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement action against former employees. Obtained consent decrees with respect to all defendants.
Frink America v. Champion Road Machinery (N.D.N.Y., 2nd Circuit, 1999-2002) – Represented Canadian heavy equipment manufacturer in copyright/trade secret case relating to designs for snow removal equipment. Obtained summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law for client on all counts, affirmed on appeal, reported at and 48 F.Supp.2d 198, 62 F.Supp.2d 679, and 43 Fed.Appx. 456.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.