Lawrence M. Green

Lawrence M. Green

Partner

(P) 617-443-9292, ext 310

(F) 617-443-0004

lgreen@sunsteinlaw.com

Download v-card

Education

Pennsylvania State University, B.S.

Northeastern University School of Law, J.D.

Lawrence M. Green

Larry Green is a patent lawyer partner at Sunstein and is highly experienced in handling pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device patent interferences and litigation, patent and trademark prosecution, and clearance opinions on validity, infringement and patentability.  His practice is focused on all aspects of intellectual property in various technologies, including medical devices and mechanical technologies.

Experience

  • Larry has had a long history of successfully handling matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  Noteworthy cases include the following:
    • Bioactive Laboratories v. BTG International Inc. This IPR involved a snake antivenom.  Larry’s client’s preliminary response persuaded the PTAB to decline to institute an IPR of its patent.
    • Cooper v. Goldfarb. This patent interference involved enormously valuable vascular graft technology, and was the longest-running patent interference in USPTO history. Larry’s client prevailed in three Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decisions and two Federal Circuit appeals. The resulting patent issued in 2002 and has been litigated with success.
    • Regents of the University of California v. University of Iowa Research Foundation. This patent interference involved a client’s core biotechnology intellectual property. Larry’s client prevailed because the Court found that the competition failed to comply with the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 135(b). In a decision appealed to the Federal Circuit, the victory not only preserved the client’s valuable patent rights, but also significantly expanded the existing law and provided additional protection to all patent holders by restricting the ability of patent applicants to provoke an interference with an issued patent.
    • Raz v. Krieg. Larry represented the prevailing inventor in two related patent interferences regarding patent applications for methods of treating asthma. In the first interference, Larry prevailed in the preliminary motions period, and the other side appealed. During the appeal, the other side abandoned the appeal. In the second interference, the other side conceded and requested that judgment be entered in the client’s favor.
    • Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Catalyst Assets. In this patent interference, Larry obtained dismissal of an interference provoked by one of MIT’s competitors for failure to meet the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 135(b). This decision confirmed and extended the holding that he had previously secured for a different client in the Regents of the University of California v. University of Iowa Research Foundation case.
    • Bestfoods v. Barber Foods. This patent interference involved food processing technology, in which Larry represented the applicant who discovered a former collaborator had filed for, and had obtained, a patent on subject matter the client believed had been derived from its inventors. Larry developed a strategy that caused the patentee to concede the interference, resulting in the collaborator’s patent being cancelled and allowing Larry’s client to obtain a patent on that subject matter.
    • Landers v. Sapolsky. Larry successfully represented the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in an interference with respect to methods for detecting genetic defects. MIT prevailed on 35 U.S.C. §112 grounds as Sapolsky’s claims were not supported because they were broader in scope than the method disclosed in the patent specification.
    • Conopco v. Vrije Universiteit Brussel. This interference involved immunoglobulins devoid of light chains.  The interference was settled on terms that allowed Larry’s client to obtain a patent covering the commercially valuable embodiment of the invention.
    • Adimab v. Dyax. This interference related to a method of displaying a library of antibodies on the surface of yeast cells.  Larry’s client provoked the interference and invalidated claims of a competitor’s patent based upon the prior art while successfully avoiding the same prior art to obtain a patent on the claimed method.
    • Bison v. Crabtree. This interference related to organic liquid fertilizer.  Larry’s client successfully provoked an interference against a competitor who, it believed, had stolen his clients invention.  Larry was able to settle the interference on grounds in which the competitor requested adverse judgment and Larry’s client obtained a patent on the technology.
  • Larry has been involved in numerous litigation matters, including the following:
    • Larry briefed and argued three litigation-related appeals before the Federal Circuit, including the seminal case of Vitronics Corporation v. Concentronic, Inc.
    • Larry briefed and argued three ex parte appeals to the Federal Circuit, including In re: Sullivan, overturning a board decision of obviousness. Larry also handled In re: Graff and In re: Clement which established new law regarding reissue applications.
    • Larry was a member of the team in five patent infringement trials, three of which were jury trials.

Bar Admissions

  • Larry is admitted to practice in Massachusetts and Federal Circuit and is also registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Professional Involvement

Larry is involved in the following organizations.

  • American Bar Association
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Boston Bar Association
  • Boston Patent Law Association
  • Boston IP Inn of Court

Honors

Larry has been repeatedly named to the list of Massachusetts Super Lawyers in the field of intellectual property law and has also been repeatedly named to The Best Lawyers in America®.

Interests

Larry qualified and ran in the Boston Marathon for seven straight years.