Lawrence M. Hadley

Glaser Weil Partner, Intellectual Property Department Chair, and Investigations, Compliance and Strategic Response Co-chair Lawrence “Larry” M. Hadley is a highly skilled patent and trade secret first chair trial and appellate attorney who represents a wide range of technology-industry clients. In addition to patents and trade secrets, Larry has extensive experience in trademark and copyright law. He is well respected for vigorously and successfully representing clients going up against tech giants and is consistently sought after as a creative problem solver whose deep and broad knowledge of intellectual property law allows him to decisively counsel his clients through complex litigation and achieve precedent-setting results.

Larry has handled intellectual property and complex litigation cases involving computer hardware and software design, networking and wireless communications, medical devices, telecommunications and transportation. His proficiency in technology has led him to appear in trial and appellate courts across the country and before the United States International Trade Commission (USITC). 

Larry maintains a diverse practice built on his extensive experience in:

• Intellectual property litigation
  • Patents
  • Trade secrets
  • Trademarks
  • Copyright
• Intellectual property strategic counseling and licensing
• ITC litigation
• Post-grant proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• Cyber matters related to ransomware and online defamation
• Crisis management and strategic response

Larry’s recent notable experience includes his representation of:

• Aqua Connect, Inc., as lead trial counsel in securing a $5.7 million patent infringement victory in Delaware federal court against TeamViewer US, LLC, and TeamViewer Germany, GMBH, regarding patents on its remote connection software.
• Textron Specialized Vehicles, Inc., as lead counsel in successfully enforcing patent rights pertaining to golf car design against overseas importers and achieving a settlement that resulted in the discontinuation of infringing sales.
• Pop-A-Shot Enterprise, LLC, as lead trial counsel in obtaining a preliminary injunction in a trademark infringement action against a sporting equipment manufacturer and negotiating a settlement that resolved a dispute over sales of infringing products containing the Pop-A-Shot name.
• UUSI LLC d/b/a/ Nartron, an early pioneer in touchscreen technology, as lead trial counsel in patent infringement actions against Samsung and Apple alleging infringement of its capacitive touch response patent, which is foundational to today’s modern touchscreen technology. Matters include numerous inter partes review (IPR) challenges and federal circuit appeals from IPR decisions upholding the validity of our client’s patent.
• StemExpress, LLC, a life sciences company, as lead trial counsel in federal trade secret litigation over blood separation technologies against a former business partner who formed a competing company, ultimately securing a confidential settlement shortly before trial, and in a separate state trade secret misappropriation case against a former sales employee and her new employer.
• Core Optical Technologies, as lead trial counsel and appellate counsel in an ongoing matter involving advanced fiber optic technology against manufacturers of fiber optic receivers.
• A mobile payment company that holds over 60 patents in IPRs filed by Samsung against eight patents in the mobile payment and non-browser-based app space. Filed Patent Owner Preliminary Responses in each IPR, and the PTAB agreed and declined to institute any of the IPRs on the merits. In related district court action, defeated Samsung’s efforts to hold the patents ineligible under Section 101.
• An early pioneer of Find My Device technology in an ongoing patent infringement action against LG Electronics in the Western District of Texas.
• Spinal Generations, LLC, a retired surgeon’s patent company, in a patent infringement case against DePuy involving orthopedic surgical instruments in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Additional representative experience includes Larry’s representation of:

• Rovi Corp. v. Comcast. Rovi Corp. 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 in which Larry prevailed in decisions upheld by the commission.
• Quid, Inc. v. Gourley and Primer. Quid, Inc., as lead trial counsel in breach of contract and trade secret actions against the company’s former CTO and his new company, Primer, Inc. The matters include an arbitration against the former CTO (where Larry leads a team in a trial via Zoom) and a pending state court action against Primer.
• ABS v. CBS, et al. ABS and other owners of “pre-1972” sound recordings for violation of California law relating to unlicensed terrestrial and internet simulcast performances. Obtained a favorable decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming that digital remasters remained pre-1972 sound recordings governed by state law.
• Good Technology Corporation v. MobileIron Inc. Good Technology Corporation against MobileIron, Inc., in which the parties—competitors in the mobile device management software field—asserted patent infringement claims against each other. Following a two-week jury trial, the parties reached a confidential settlement.
• Uniloc v. CompuLink Business Systems, et al. 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.
• The 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. Finance Express, 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.
• California Table Grape Commission v. Sandrini Farms. A Central Valley farming company as lead trial counsel in the defense against allegations of infringement over a table grape patent. During trial, Larry achieved an amicable settlement.
• Delano v. California Table Grape Commission. 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. Ronald A. Katz Technology in actions against General Motors and others involving the Katz interactive call processing patents. 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. 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. Golden Bridge as lead trial counsel in patent litigation involving standard essential 3G patents asserted against wireless smartphones.
• Joltid Limited v. Skype Technologies S.A. 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. Seagate Technology Inc., engaged after reversal and remand from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, 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. StarSight Telecast in a three-judge arbitration in San Francisco, successfully securing an arbitration award against General Instrument in connection with a substantial trade-secret dispute involving electronic program guide technology.

Results

News

Speaking Engagements

• Moderator, “Hot Button Issues in the Video Gaming Industry,” TechTainment 7.0, November 2021

• Speaker, "Section 101 Litigation After Cellspin," IP Chat Channel webinar, August 6, 2019 

• Speaker, Licensing Executive Society’s Annual Conference
• Speaker, “Section 101 and First Post-Alice Opinion,” IPO Webinar
• Speaker, “Section 101 of the Patent Act,” Distributed Computing Industry Association Webcast

Thought Leadership

• “The Fifty Percent Ad Valorem Duty on Foreign Ship Repairs: Scope of Application and Proposals for Elimination,” 24 Geo. Wash. J. Int’l L. & Econ., 1991

• “P2P: The Path to Prosperity,” 24 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 649, 2004

Awards and Recognition

Best Lawyers in America, 2012-2023

Benchmark Litigation, “Litigation Star” (US-National, California), Intellectual Property, multiple years

Legal 500, Leading Patent Litigator

Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Peer Rated

Related links

Member, American Intellectual Property Association

Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association

Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association

Member, Los Angeles Intellectual Property Association