Sullivan
Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Sullivan website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.

Our IP Litigation Group defends the intellectual property rights of domestic and foreign consumer product, hospitality and entertainment, media, high-tech and life sciences clients, publicly traded multinational corporations and startup ventures.

The Group represents clients in trademark, unfair competition, false advertising, copyright, trade secret, patent, antitrust, product liability, and related disputes in the federal and state courts, before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the International Trade Commission, and via alternative avenues of dispute resolution such as arbitration under the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and proceedings before the National Advertising Division (NAD).

Our litigators also proactively counsel clients on litigation risk management, pre-litigation analysis and assessment and negotiated dispute resolution before arbitrators and mediators across the country. We have handled patent litigation matters representing both patent owners and defendants, including a number of matters defending against patent assertion companies. Additionally, one of our litigators has served as an expert witness on patent issues in an arbitration involving underlying patent litigation.

Representative Client Work

  • Represented major biotech and medical device companies in several proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
  • Representing defendant in patent infringement action involving digital file management
  • Served as a testifying expert on patent law issues and as a person of skill in the art in an arbitration involving polymer chemistry
  • Resolved a dispute over several patents asserted against our client involving software used to manage networked devices
  • Resolved a dispute over several patents asserted against our client involving website operations
  • Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving calculating credit and trust scores
  • Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving Internet website navigation
  • Resolved a dispute involving ownership issues related to patent applications for CRISPR technology
  • Represented patent holder in patent infringement action involving merchandise display stands
  • Represented patent holder in patent infringement action involving systems for videophones
  • Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving electronic visual display systems
  • Represented defendant in patent infringement action involving online advertising (settled favorably prior to trial)
  • Represented defendant Southwestern Bell Telephone in patent litigation involving telecommunications technology (obtained favorable claim construction ruling)
  • Represented patent applicant in interference directed to methods of obtaining biologically active molecules known as aptamers
  • Represented patentee in infringement action involving veterinary pharmaceuticals (settled favorably prior to trial)
  • Represented patent applicant in multiple interferences directed to decomposing perfluorinated compounds (obtained favorable final order)
  • Represented patent holder in infringement case involving microscope systems
  • A green products company in a pending action for copyright and design patent infringement
  • A design software and content company, as lead appellate counsel, in a copyright/unfair competition case
  • A venture fund as lead counsel in a trademark infringement/unfair competition matter
  • A developer of console gaming products as lead counsel in software copyright infringement matter
  • A renowned New York City restaurant in a trademark dispute against a competitor seeking to open a restaurant in midtown Manhattan
  • An international manufacturer and distributor of vegetarian and kosher foods in a civil action alleging trade dress infringement
  • A leading manufacturer of swimming pool cleaning chemicals in litigating and successfully settling a patent infringement lawsuit
  • An international eyewear company in successfully resolving numerous IP and licensing disputes, including dismissal of alleged trade dress infringement relating to Ray-Ban sunglasses
Viewpoints
All Viewpoints
AI as a Legal Tool: What Companies Need to Know
Companies are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence ("AI") platforms to obtain legal information. In the intellectual property context, common uses include freedom-to-operate searches, claims drafting, and assessments of potential patent infringement exposure. A recent decision from the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York calls into question whether documents generated through certain AI platforms are entitled to protection under the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines. In United States v. Bradley Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff ruled in a criminal proceeding that documents generated through an AI platform were not entitled to protection under either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In that case, the defendant is alleged to have used a consumer version of Anthropic’s Claude AI to generate documents related to his defense. Heppner’s attorney claimed that those documents were privileged and the Government subsequently filed a motion for a ruling that the documents were not privileged. In granting the government’s motion on February 10, 2026, Judge Rakoff noted that the attorney-client privilege attaches to communications for legal advice between a client and their attorney that are intended to be, and are kept, confidential. Judge Rakoff determined that the AI-generated documents failed to meet the criteria for establishing privilege. First, the Judge pointed out that the AI documents were not communications with counsel, and the AI agent cannot be construed as legal counsel. Second, the communications in the AI-generated documents were not confidential because the communications were with a third party whose privacy policy explicitly states that users consent to Anthropic’s use of inputs and outputs for various purposes. Finally, the Judge ruled that Heppner’s use of AI was not for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Heppner’s attorney suggested that Heppner was using AI for the purpose of communicating with counsel, but the Judge noted that Heppner did not do so at the direction of counsel (which, if he had, might still not have been sufficient to be considered attorney-client communication). Key Takeaways: The use of AI to obtain legal analysis or advice might not be covered under the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines. That means that there is a risk that AI-generated documents might not be protected from disclosure to an opposing party in litigation. Even the AI queries themselves may not be privileged and may later be construed as damaging admissions. The decision in US v. Heppner is a criminal case and is a decision of a single United States District Court. It appears to be the first decision regarding the use of AI to obtain legal advice, and it is possible that other District Courts or a Court of Appeal could render a different decision. The Heppner case does not specifically address the use of AI in the context of IP litigation, but it is reasonable to assume that the principles applied in Heppner would apply to any privilege contention. However, it is possible that another District Court or an appellate court would rule differently in the context of patent issues. Judge Rakoff noted that the defendant utilized a commercial version of AI. It is possible that an enterprise version would support a stronger expectation of privacy by the user. It is unclear whether the use of AI at the direction of counsel would result in a different decision. What You Should Do: Companies should exercise caution in their use of AI to generate legal advice, documents, and the like. It is best to consult with counsel prior to undertaking the risk of using AI for legal advice. We will post further commentary as this area of the law develops.
Supreme Court Extends Copyright Damages Period, Overrules Three-Year Lookback
On May 9, 2024, in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Copyright Act permits a copyright owner to recover damages for infringing acts that occurred more than three years before bringing a claim, so long as the claim is timely filed. Although this decision brings clarity and resolves a circuit split on the damages assessment, the Court left unresolved the more fundamental question of when a copyright infringement claim accrues: when an infringing act occurs, or upon its discovery. Background and Procedural History The case involved a dispute between music producer Sherman Nealy, the founder of a company called Music Specialist, Inc., and the music publishing company Warner Chappell Music, Inc. Nealy alleged that, during a period in which Nealy was incarcerated, Nealy’s former business partner purported to license certain of Music Specialist’s songs to Warner Chappell. Warner Chappell subsequently licensed those songs for various purposes, including as a music sample used in the Flo Rida song, “In the Ayer.” Nealy asserted that he personally owned the copyrights in the Music Specialist works, and that Warner Chappell’s licensing activities infringed upon his rights. Nealy discovered the infringement in 2016 after his release from prison, and in 2018 sued Warner Chappell for copyright infringement in the Southern District of Florida. The Copyright Act’s statute of limitations provides that a copyright owner must bring an infringement claim within three years of its accrual. U.S. circuit courts are divided as to whether a claim accrues when the infringing act occurs or upon the copyright owner’s discovery of the infringement. In the District Court, Warner Chappell accepted the application of the discovery rule, but argued that Nealy could recover damages only for those infringements occurring in the past three years. The District Court agreed. Citing the Second Circuit decision Sohm v. Scholastic Inc., the District Court held that even in a timely filed claim, monetary relief is available only with respect to infringements in the three-year period prior to the commencement of the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, rejecting the three-year damages bar.  Declining to follow the Second Circuit, the court instead adopted the Ninth Circuit’s view, holding that in a timely filed suit, a copyright owner is entitled to damages regardless of when the infringing acts occurred. The Supreme Court Decision In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, holding that where the discovery rule applies, there is no time limit to recovery of monetary damages in a timely filed copyright infringement action. Thus, a copyright owner that brings a timely claim is entitled to damages no matter when the infringement occurred. The majority criticized the Second Circuit’s approach as “self-defeating,” by, on the one hand, allowing a copyright owner to sue for infringing acts that occurred more than three years earlier, but on the other hand, prohibiting the copyright owner from recovering damages for those older infringements. The Court expressly declined to decide on the appropriateness of the discovery rule, or “whether a copyright claim accrues when a plaintiff discovers or should have discovered an infringement, rather than when the infringement happened.” According to the majority, the issue of the discovery rule was not properly presented, as Warner Chappell did not challenge the Eleventh Circuit’s application of the rule. Writing in dissent, Justice Gorsuch criticized the majority’s approach, stating that the Copyright Act “almost certainly does not tolerate a discovery rule.” Justice Gorsuch contended that, except in cases of fraud or concealment, the statute of limitations period should begin to run when the injury occurs, which is when the plaintiff is first entitled to file suit and obtain relief. Justice Gorsuch would have dismissed the case as improvidently granted. Comments In the near term, the Court’s decision in Warner Chappell could be a boon for copyright owners seeking to recover damages for past infringements in courts that apply the discovery rule, including in the Second Circuit. The ruling could materially increase the size of monetary damages recoveries. Yet, the Court has left unresolved the validity of the discovery rule. The dissenting opinion casts doubt on its long-term prospects and suggests that it is ripe for challenge. As Justice Gorsuch noted, this could render the Court’s decision a “dead letter.” * * * The case is Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, No. 22-1078 (U.S. May 9, 2024). The opinion is available here. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this Client Alert, please contact one of the lawyers listed above or any member of Sullivan’s Copyright Group.
Drug-pricing dispute at US Supreme Court raises trade secret disclosure questions
Thomas Meyers was quoted in the article "Drug-pricing dispute at US Supreme Court raises trade secret disclosure questions," published by MLex [sub. req’d.] on June 24, 2026. The article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s request for the solicitor general’s views in a challenge to Oregon’s drug-pricing transparency law and the broader implications for constitutional protections of trade secrets and compelled disclosure of confidential business information. Tom, who leads Sullivan's Life Sciences practice group, discussed the potential consequences of allowing governments to require companies to disclose information they consider proprietary, warning that such requirements could erode longstanding protections for trade secrets. He noted, “I don't think the government, federal or state, should have the right to force disclosure of something that's otherwise regarded as a trade secret. There's a slippery slope here. What are you going to require next?” He also highlighted the potential impact of varying state disclosure requirements on businesses, adding, “There are other states that have passed similar provisions. We don't really have sufficient guardrails around this... Every state presumably could have a different approach to this, and so companies could be stuck figuring out 50 different strategies.”
Intellectual Property Group Earns Repeat Recognition in WTR 1000 Rankings
Boston, MA – Sullivan & Worcester LLP is pleased to announce that its Intellectual Property Group has once again been recognized in the 2026 edition of the World Trademark Review 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals (WTR 1000), a leading global directory that highlights top trademark practitioners and firms worldwide. Sullivan & Worcester earned a Bronze Band ranking for trademark prosecution and strategy. Individually, Kimberly Herman was recognized with a Gold Band ranking for prosecution and strategy in Massachusetts, and Michael Palmisciano received a Bronze Band ranking for prosecution and strategy in New York. Editorial Comments from WTR 1000 "A safe pair of hands for clients seeking high-level trademark strategy, Sullivan & Worcester delivers sharp guidance across all aspects of brand management, helping businesses confidently navigate domestic and international challenges." “'Superstar' Kimberly Herman is celebrated as 'a recognised expert in the field. She combines deep knowledge and practical skill with a client-friendly approach. She is flexible, strategic, and unafraid to be tough when the situation calls for it. Her presence offers clients confidence and clarity, making her a valuable member of this community.'" "Michael Palmisciano is a sought-after name housed at Sullivan & Worcester. 'Mike is very experienced and knowledgeable in trademark practice and is great at finding pragmatic solutions to achieve the best possible outcome for the client. His responsiveness and commercially strategic approach make him one of the best in the business.'” About Sullivan & Worcester Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a global, mid-sized law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers and its commitment to best‑in‑class client service.

IP Litigation