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 ten-fold increase in pro bono hours handled by attorneys.
Mr. Kolodney has served as a member of Fish’s contingent fee intake committee since 2009, and has extensive experience vetting and handling contingent fee matters. Since 2005, Fish has recovered over $300 million on behalf of contingent fee clients.
Prior to joining Fish, Mr. Kolodney served as a law clerk to the Honorable Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and to the Honorable Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Appeals Court (recalled retired justice of Supreme Judicial Court).
Specialized Education and Teaching Positions
Visiting Lecturer, Harvard Law School, Patent Litigation Workshop (2018)
Instructor, Suffolk University Law School, Patent Law (2001-2002)
Graduate of National Institute of Trial Advocacy Intensive Trial Skills Program (1999)
- “The Return of Opinions of Counsel in Patent Cases: How Recent Judicial Decisions Have Made Them Relevant Once More,” Fish Litigation Blog (July 6, 2018)
- “Contingent Fee Litigation–A Low Risk Way to Enforce and Monetize Your Patents,” Corporate Counsel (October 23, 2017)
- “Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How It Works and What to Expect,” Fish Litigation Webinar (May 28, 2020)
- “Business Method Patents: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You,” Massachusetts Software Council “Hot Topics” Program (1999)
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 involving 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-infringement, 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.
Trade Secret and Copyright Cases
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.
- Named a “Leading Patent Professional” by IAM Patent 1000 (2016-2018, 2020-2021).
- Named in “The Best Lawyers in America for Litigation-Intellectual Property and Litigation-Patent” by The Best Lawyers in America (since 2012)
- Recognized as a “2013 Top Rated – AV® PreeminentTM Lawyers in Intellectual Property Law.
- Named a “Massachusetts Super Lawyers – Intellectual Property,” (2004 and 2013)
- Named “Pro Bono Attorney of the Year “by the Political Asylum and Immigration Representation Project (2004)
- Named as one of Boston’s “Forty Under Forty” by the Boston Business Journal (October 2002)
- Named to the “Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2019 Pro Bono Honor Roll” (2019)
J.D. cum laude, Harvard Law School (1990)
S.M., Electrical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1987)
S.B., Electrical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1987)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 1999
- Massachusetts 1990
Massachusetts Appeals Court, The Honorable Benjamin Kaplan (recalled retired Justice of Supreme Judicial Court), 1990 - 1991
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, The Honorable Nancy Gertner, 1994 - 1996
July 7, 2021
Fish & Richardson Receives Top Rankings in 2021 Edition of IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals
October 29, 2020
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Names 20 Fish Attorneys to Pro Bono Honor Roll
August 12, 2020
Fish & Richardson Receives Top “Gold” Ranking from IAM Patent 1000 for National Litigation Practice; National Rankings in the Plaintiff Firm and Prosecution Firm Categories
July 24, 2020
Fish & Richardson Jumps 18 Spots in the American Lawyer’s 2020 Pro Bono Scorecard
June 11, 2020
Fish & Richardson Pro Bono Attorneys Assist in Successful Appeal of Permit For Enbridge Unit Pipeline Facility
May 18, 2020
Fish & Richardson Helps ACLU of Massachusetts Win Pro Bono Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful “Return to Mexico” Policy for Asylum-Seekers
May 6, 2020
Fish & Richardson Named to The National Law Journal’s 2020 Pro Bono Hot List
May 28th, 2020 | 1:30 pm EDT
Webinar | Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How It Works and What to Expect
May 3, 2019
Fish & Richardson Wins $1.43 Million For Sex Trafficking Survivor in Pro Bono Civil Suit
April 18, 2019
Fish & Richardson Receives “Allegiance Award” from Kids in Need of Defense
April 17th, 2019 | 6:00 pm EDT
2019 Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) Gala Benefit Dinner
August 15, 2018
47 Fish Attorneys Named to The Best Lawyers in America® 2019 List