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

Biography

Zachary counsels clients in pursuing commercially relevant intellectual property protection strategies. He has extensive experience securing patents in areas including life sciences, biotechnology, bioinformatics, pharmaceuticals, semiconductor devices, and optical systems.

He assists clients in pursuing effective prosecution strategies. His experience includes drafting and filing patent applications, drafting claims, responding to Office Actions, prosecuting broadening reissue applications, securing domestic and international trademark protection for clients, including life sciences clients, and managing disclosure obligations across large portfolios of related applications.  

Prior to joining Sullivan, Zack was a partner at several global law firms in Boston.

Education
  • Boston College Law School (J.D.)
  • Portland State University (M.S.)
  • State University of New York at Buffalo (B.A.)
Bar & Court Admissions
  • Massachusetts
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Awards & Honors
  • Best Lawyers in America® (2026)
  • Ranked in The Legal 500 Boston Elite for Intellectual Property (2026)
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.
U.S. Department of Commerce Weighs Patent Tax with Significant Implications for Innovation and Patent Strategy
On July 28, 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Department of Commerce is considering a new proposal to impose a tax of 1% to 5%  on the “value” of issued patents. If implemented, the tax would be in addition to the existing maintenance fees currently charged at only three times after a patent issues. Background: The Existing Patent System and Economic Incentives The patent system is a core business right enshrined in the United States Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 grants Congress the power to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by granting exclusivity to inventors and authors for limited times. The U.S. patent system provides a tradeoff between the government and inventors. In exchange for full public disclosure of an invention, the U.S. government provides a 20-year right of exclusivity. The rationale for this system is that without some incentive for full disclosure, ideas will be kept secret, thus inhibiting technological improvements and innovation. Key Concerns: Patent Valuation and Market Impact The proposed tax raises several practical and policy concerns. First, the proposed basis for the tax is the value of the patent, a figure that is often difficult to determine. The true value of a patent may not become apparent until it can be tied to an exclusive benefit, which may not be realized until late in the 20-year patent term. Second, most patents lack any economic value as determined by success in litigation, licensing, or sale of the patent. Any deterrent value of a patent absent hard economic data (i.e., a sale, license revenue, or damages in litigation) is speculative at best. Third, a tax on patents could reduce the number of patent applications filed, especially in cash-strapped industries such as biotechnology. A value-based tax could deter patent filings among startups and companies that lack the resources to pay increased fees without clear commercial returns. That may result in companies in the innovation economy making every effort to keep technology secret, further deterring innovation. Fourth, taxing patents may have an adverse economic impact on the United States, akin to what we have observed in Europe where patents and patent applications suffer annual taxes called “annuities.” The result of the annuities in Europe is that companies limit their filings and focus their market strategy on low-tax jurisdictions, such as the United States, where they can currently file more applications at low cost. The exclusivity that results from robust patent filing here is an incentive for companies to focus on the U.S (in addition to other market incentives). Looking Ahead While the proposal is still under consideration and no formal regulatory action has been taken, stakeholders across industries should monitor developments. A tax on the perceived value of patents is likely to have an adverse impact on innovation and negative economic consequences for the United States. If implemented, the tax could represent a fundamental shift in the cost-benefit analysis of participating in the U.S. patent system. For more information or guidance on how these potential changes could affect your business or intellectual property strategy, contact one of the Sullivan lawyers listed above.
Sullivan & Worcester Ranked in The Legal 500 Boston Elite 2026
Boston, MA – Sullivan is excited to announce that its practice groups and attorneys have been ranked in The Legal 500 Boston Elite 2026. The Boston Elite rankings highlight attorneys in the Boston region who are widely regarded for their substantive experience and client service in their respective fields. Sullivan's lawyers received the following rankings: William Hanson - Banking and Finance (Including Restructuring) Jeffrey Morlend - Banking and Finance (Including Restructuring) Duncan O'Brien - Banking and Finance (Including Restructuring) Amy Zuccarello - Banking and Finance (Including Restructuring) Laura Steinberg - Commercial Disputes; White-Collar Crime Zachary Hyde - Intellectual Property Thomas Meyers - Intellectual Property The firm was also recognized as a “Leading Law Firm” in the Banking and Finance (Including Restructuring) practice area. About Sullivan & Worcester LLP Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a premier international 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.
44 Sullivan & Worcester Lawyers Named as “Best Lawyers” Award Recipients
Boston MA – Sullivan & Worcester today announced that 44 lawyers were recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers in America®. Three Sullivan partners also earned the 2026 “Lawyer of the Year” recognition from The Best Lawyers in America®. 39 of the firm’s lawyers in Boston, New York and Washington, D.C. were named as “Best Lawyers in America®,” and five Sullivan lawyers were recognized as “Ones to Watch” in the U.S. Lawyers of the Year David Nagle, managing partner of Sullivan, Amy Sheridan, and Lewis Segall were selected as "Lawyer of the Year" in Boston for Litigation and Controversy – Tax, Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law, and Mergers and Acquisitions Law, respectively. Only one lawyer is recognized as a "Lawyer of the Year" in each practice area and geographic location. These individuals are notable for receiving significantly higher ratings in Best Lawyers’ rigorous assessment process among the thousands of leading lawyers peer-reviewed in their markets. Best Lawyers in America® The firm’s 2026 Best Lawyers in Boston include Victor Baltera (Real Estate Law); Howard Berkenblit (Corporate Governance Law, Corporate Law); Harvey Bines (Corporate Compliance Law, Corporate Governance Law); Ashley Brooks (Real Estate Law); Joel Carpenter (Tax Law); Henry Comstock Jr. (Trusts and Estates); Christopher Curtis (Tax Law); Patrick Dinardo (Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Litigation – Bankruptcy); John Graham (Nonprofit / Charities Law, Tax Law); Ira Gross (Commercial Litigation); David Guadagnoli (Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law, Tax Law); Warren Heilbronner (Real Estate Law); Zachary Hyde (Patent Law); Richard Jones (Tax Law); Karen Kepler (Real Estate Law), Caroline Kupiec (Tax Law); Thomas Meyers (Patent Law); Lisa Mingolla (Trusts and Estates); Louis Monti (Real Estate Law); Cornelius Murray III (Trusts and Estates); David Nagle (Litigation and Controversy – Tax, Tax Law); Nicholas O'Donnell (Commercial Litigation); Ameek Ashok Ponda (Tax Law); Gregory Sampson (Environmental Law, Land Use and Zoning Law, Real Estate Law); Lewis Segall (Mergers and Acquisitions Law); Amy Sheridan (Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law); Laura Steinberg (Commercial Litigation); Sarah Wellings (Tax Law) and Amy Zuccarello (Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Litigation – Bankruptcy). Sullivan’s 2026 Best Lawyers in Washington, D.C. include John Chilton (Mutual Funds); Cameron Cosby (Tax); Nicole Crum (Mutual Funds); David Leahy (Mutual Funds); David Mahaffey (Mutual Funds & Securities Regulation); and Stephanie Monaco (Corporate, Mutual Funds, Private Funds / Hedge Funds, & Securities Regulation). The firm’s 2026 honorees in New York include Carole Bass (Trusts and Estates); J. Truman Bidwell, Jr. (Corporate); Domenick Pugliese (Mutual Funds); and Constantine Ralli (Trusts and Estates). Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch Awardees Best Lawyers awards this recognition to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States. Sullivan’s five lawyers earning this award include Alexander Gansebom (Corporate Governance and Compliance Law, Corporate Law, Health Care Law, Mergers and Acquisitions Law, Real Estate Law); Emily Goldschmidt (Corporate Law); Ryan Rosenblatt (Commercial Litigation); Ashley Tan (Real Estate Law); and Eric Victorson (Securities / Capital Markets Law). Best Lawyers Selection Methodology Recognition by Best Lawyers in America® is based on a peer review process designed to capture the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical and legal practice areas. About Sullivan 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.