Skip to main content

Sandra J. Badin

Special Counsel

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1604

Share:

Sandra Badin focuses her patent practice on appeals before the Federal Circuit and high-priority motions in the federal district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission.  She has represented clients in many different technology fields with patents covering radio frequency transceivers, graphics processing units, LCD displays, medical records processing systems, electronic point-of-sale systems, high-density plasma cutting torches, dental materials and processes, specialty fabrics, and financial and business methods.  Sandra crafts winning appellate briefs and dispositive motions by translating complex technical information into simple, clear prose lay readers can understand, and by presenting difficult, fact-intensive arguments cogently and persuasively. 

Sandra also maintains an active pro bono practice.  She serves as co-chair of the Amicus Committees of both the Boston Patent Law Association and the Women’s Bar Association and has co-authored amicus briefs to the United States Supreme Court and state supreme courts across the country on behalf of non-profit organizations including the ACLU, the ASPCA, the BPLA, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the American Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, and US Inventor, Inc.

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 assistant to Professors Frank Michelman, Alan Dershowitz, Stephen J. Gould, and Heather Gerken, as a research assistant to several of her professors, and as a senior thesis adviser to undergraduates in the Government and Social Studies Departments at Harvard College.

Education

  • Harvard Law School (JD)
  • Columbia University (MPhil)
  • York University (MA)
  • University of Toronto (BA)

Experience

Federal District Court

  • 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.
  • Briefed and won an appeal in the Federal Circuit on behalf of a major provider of medical records systems; the appeals court summarily affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case on the grounds that the claims of the asserted patent were drawn to ineligible subject matter. 
  • Briefed and won an appeal in the Federal Circuit on behalf of the owner of a portfolio of voice-over-IP patents; the appeals court affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that the patents at issue were not invalid.  
  • Briefed and won an appeal in the Federal Circuit seeking vacatur of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that the patents at issue were obvious in light of prior art; the appeals court held the Board’s determination was based on the wrong claim construction and vacated the Board’s decision on that basis.  
  • Briefed and won many dispositive and other high-priority motions including motions challenging personal jurisdiction, standing, and venue; discovery motions seeking to compel the production of documents and to quash or limit subpoenas; motions for summary judgment on issues of infringement, validity, and domestic industry; and Daubert and other evidentiary motions.

Involvement

  • Co-Chair, Amicus Committee, Boston Patent Law Association
  • Co-Chair, Amicus Committee, Women's Bar Association
  • Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Member, Boston Intellectual Property Inn of Court
  • Member, Boston Bar Association

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Patent owners have a new arrow in their quiver. The Supreme Court has held that patent owners can recover foreign lost profits for the use or sale of infringing products abroad if the products were assembled from components of the patented invention exported from the United States.
As we noted in our blog post last week, the USPTO held its “Chat with the Chief on SAS” webinar on April 30, 2018, to advise the public on the implications of the Supreme Court’s opinion in SAS Institute for practice before the Board going forward.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important patent law opinions that relate to the inter partes review procedure introduced by the America Invents Act: Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, which upholds the constitutionality of inter partes review, and SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, which requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to adjudicate the validity all patent claims challenged in a petition for inter partes review if the Board decides to adjudicate the validity of any claim challenged in that petition.

Software is Still Patent Eligible

February 16, 2017| Advisory

In recent years, software patents have come under fire from legislation (the American Invents Act) that has generally made patents easier to invalidate, and from court decisions (the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank1 and its progeny) that have made computer-implemented inventions more vulnerable to subject matter eligibility challenges.
Earlier this week, Intellectual Ventures (IV) petitioned the full Federal Circuit to review the panel opinion in Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, which invalidated two of its patents under section 101.  Both patents—the ’050 and the ’610—are directed to filtering email or file content.
The Supreme Court has made it easier for patent owners to prove willful infringement and entitlement to enhanced damages.
The Supreme Court has made it easier for patent owners to prove willful infringement and entitlement to enhanced damages.
Late last week, in an opinion authored by Judge Prost, a panel of the Federal Circuit vacated a $16 million damages award won by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in its patent infringement suit against Cisco Systems, Inc. 
Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a pivotal decision in Microsoft v. Motorola regarding the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs) on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.
Late last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its much-anticipated decision in Microsoft v. Motorola, a breach of contract action brought by Microsoft alleging that Motorola violated its commitment to license its standard essential patents (SEPs) on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.

News & Press

Mintz IP attorneys Michael Renaud, Michael Newman, James Wodarski, and Sandra Badin are among industry sources in this article assessing a Texas ruling that "asserted claims of patent covering medical technology are invalid as abstract and not inventive" under Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International. 
Mintz announced a victory before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court affirmed an Eastern District of Texas ruling from May 2016 that held unpatentable a medical records patent asserted by Preservation Wellness against NextGen Healthcare.
This piece, co-authored by Mike Renaud and Sandra Badin, discusses two notable decisions by the Federal Circuit and the ITC that impact standard essential patents and shape the incentives of technology innovators.
Division Head of the firm’s IP Section Michael Renaud and Special Counsel Sandra Badin authored this Massachusetts Lawyers Journal column on the recent decisions to opt out of standards-setting patent policy introduced by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ (IEEE).
Mintz Members Michael Renaud and James Wodarski and Sandra Badin, Special Counsel and Appellate attorney, authored an Intellectual Asset Magazine column on how U.S. owners of standard-essential patents must be creative in their strategizing to protect the value of their rights.
This article notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld claims in a Straight Path IP Group patent matter. The coverage notes that the decision follows a rare reversal by the Federal Circuit that found the PTAB used an incorrect claim construction previously.