John Strand is a shareholder in Wolf Greenfield’s Trademark & Copyright Practice and focuses on the enforcement and defense of intellectual property rights in trademarks, trade dress, domain names, and patents. He represents clients in courts throughout the country and abroad in a number of industries including music streaming, podcasts, airport and border security and detection services, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, internet-based sales, yacht brokerage, and military and snow helmets.

In addition to his contested matter work, John has extensive experience in counseling clients to help avoid disputes and develop their intellectual property protection, in particular in the area of blockchain technologies, including cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and Web 3.0 issues.

Client testimonial:
"John Strand is passionate about the subject matter and the less traditional things. He thinks about things outside of the box."

Client testimonial:
"When I refer to John and Allen [Rugg], I think of them in the top tier of capabilities, and they have great client interaction, cut through the noise and give good, crisp advice. That shows they get us."

Represented C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. in litigation brought by Bard’s longtime competitor and litigation adversary W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. in the District of Delaware, alleging the infringement of three patents on stent grafts. With co-counsel, obtained a complete defense verdict for Bard on Gore’s claims of willful infringement. The jury delivered a verdict that Gore’s patent claims were not infringed by either of Bard’s FLUENCY® PLUS and FLAIR® stent graft products and were also invalid. (W.L. Gore v. Bard)
Won multi-million jury verdict for Reverie on breach of contract claim against Reverie’s former supplier, after invalidating supplier’s patent in an inter partes reexamination. (Ascion LLC v. Ruoey Lung)
Represented Smith & Nephew before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in a twelve-patent litigation concerning sports medicine devices. Took leading role in preparation of inter partes reviews and succeeded in having several patents dropped from case before trial. (Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew)
Represented established biotechnology company as complainant in matter against competitor in International Trade Commission.
Represents Kantar Media Audiences and its related company WPP plc in a case where TRA Global (now owned by TiVo) asserted three patents directed to a method of directing advertisements to particular audiences, and brought claims of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and inducing breach of fiduciary duties. Successfully defeated TRA’s patent infringement and trade secret claims at summary judgment. On remand from appeal, succeeded in eliminating TRA’s $200 million compensatory damages claim and achieving stipulated judgment of non-infringement. (TiVo Research & Analytics v. Kantar)
After Consumers Interstate Corporate sued Staples on an on-line shopping method, representing Staples we navigated case through discovery and then invalidated the asserted patent in an inter partes reexamination. (CIC v. Staples)
Lead associate in six-week long trial on fundamental vascular graft and stent graft technology which resulted in $185 million jury verdict, enhanced damages, and attorneys’ fees award for Bard. Continued to represent Bard in all post-trial motion practice and appeals. Judgment now totals over $1.5 billion after award of on-going royalties. (Bard and Goldfarb v. Gore)
Together with Michael Albert and Michael Rader, won Massachusetts’ largest jury verdict of 2007 in a patent infringement case for medical device company Diomed, Inc. in a trial against two infringers of Diomed’s patent on a method for laser vein treatment.
Performed lead role in several trademark infringement suits, representing clients in yacht brokerage, home warranty, and automotive services.
Took leading role in several reexamination and inter partes reviews before US Patent and Trademark Office.
Succeeded in transfer of numerous domain names under Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, with arbitrations having multiple complainants, respondents, and domain names, and including one arbitration involving over 40 domain names.

Boston IP Inn of Court
In 2007-09, John taught trademark law as an adjunct professor at Northeastern University School of Law.

John is named to The Best Lawyers in America©. In addition, he has been repeatedly named one of the Massachusetts Super Lawyers’ "Rising Stars" in the field of intellectual property litigation.

IP Alerts

April 23, 2020

Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Obtaining a Trademark Infringer’s Profits

Articles

Blogs

January 22, 2018

For PTAB Declarations, Better to Fly Solo

June 19, 2015

The PTAB Is Not Always Right: Federal Circuit Partially Vacates PTAB Decision

Recent News & Events

July 20, 2022

John Strand Quoted by Bloomberg Law on Penn State Sports Merchandise Case

March 4, 2022

Wolf Greenfield Named Top Trademark Law Firm by World Trademark Review in 2022

December 13, 2021 9:00 AM - 10:15 AM ET

WTR Connect Industry Review 2021: Food & Beverage

September 22, 2021 1:00 PM - 2:00 PM ET

DeputyGC Virtual Roundtable: NFTs in Business: Fad or Foundational Tool?

August 19, 2021

33 Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Named to The Best Lawyers in America 2022

January 28, 2021

John Strand Quoted by Bloomberg Law on Ninth Circuit Ruling That Has Trademark Attorneys Divided

November 16, 2020

John Strand Quoted by Bloomberg Law on Utilizing Design Patents to Fight Overseas Knockoffs

August 20, 2020

29 Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Named to The Best Lawyers in America 2021

July 15, 2020

John Strand Quoted by OneZero on Booking.com Decision

July 2, 2020

John Strand Quoted by Managing IP on Booking.com Decision

Expand All

Client testimonial:
"John Strand is passionate about the subject matter and the less traditional things. He thinks about things outside of the box."

Client testimonial:
"When I refer to John and Allen [Rugg], I think of them in the top tier of capabilities, and they have great client interaction, cut through the noise and give good, crisp advice. That shows they get us."

Represented C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. in litigation brought by Bard’s longtime competitor and litigation adversary W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. in the District of Delaware, alleging the infringement of three patents on stent grafts. With co-counsel, obtained a complete defense verdict for Bard on Gore’s claims of willful infringement. The jury delivered a verdict that Gore’s patent claims were not infringed by either of Bard’s FLUENCY® PLUS and FLAIR® stent graft products and were also invalid. (W.L. Gore v. Bard)
Won multi-million jury verdict for Reverie on breach of contract claim against Reverie’s former supplier, after invalidating supplier’s patent in an inter partes reexamination. (Ascion LLC v. Ruoey Lung)
Represented Smith & Nephew before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in a twelve-patent litigation concerning sports medicine devices. Took leading role in preparation of inter partes reviews and succeeded in having several patents dropped from case before trial. (Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew)
Represented established biotechnology company as complainant in matter against competitor in International Trade Commission.
Represents Kantar Media Audiences and its related company WPP plc in a case where TRA Global (now owned by TiVo) asserted three patents directed to a method of directing advertisements to particular audiences, and brought claims of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and inducing breach of fiduciary duties. Successfully defeated TRA’s patent infringement and trade secret claims at summary judgment. On remand from appeal, succeeded in eliminating TRA’s $200 million compensatory damages claim and achieving stipulated judgment of non-infringement. (TiVo Research & Analytics v. Kantar)
After Consumers Interstate Corporate sued Staples on an on-line shopping method, representing Staples we navigated case through discovery and then invalidated the asserted patent in an inter partes reexamination. (CIC v. Staples)
Lead associate in six-week long trial on fundamental vascular graft and stent graft technology which resulted in $185 million jury verdict, enhanced damages, and attorneys’ fees award for Bard. Continued to represent Bard in all post-trial motion practice and appeals. Judgment now totals over $1.5 billion after award of on-going royalties. (Bard and Goldfarb v. Gore)
Together with Michael Albert and Michael Rader, won Massachusetts’ largest jury verdict of 2007 in a patent infringement case for medical device company Diomed, Inc. in a trial against two infringers of Diomed’s patent on a method for laser vein treatment.
Performed lead role in several trademark infringement suits, representing clients in yacht brokerage, home warranty, and automotive services.
Took leading role in several reexamination and inter partes reviews before US Patent and Trademark Office.
Succeeded in transfer of numerous domain names under Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, with arbitrations having multiple complainants, respondents, and domain names, and including one arbitration involving over 40 domain names.

Boston IP Inn of Court
In 2007-09, John taught trademark law as an adjunct professor at Northeastern University School of Law.

John is named to The Best Lawyers in America©. In addition, he has been repeatedly named one of the Massachusetts Super Lawyers’ "Rising Stars" in the field of intellectual property litigation.