Brian Landry

Partner

Saul Ewing LLP

Brian Landry is a Partner at Saul Ewing LLP. He draws on a broad base of intellectual property experience involving patents, designs, trademarks, and copyrights and technical expertise to help clients identify, protect, and enforce their intellectual property. Brian has significant experience in the medical devices field as well as consumer products, building materials, and devices and software having research, diagnostic, and therapeutic applications. Brian has handled patent matters involving a variety of medical technologies including cryotherapies for numerous medical and cosmetic indications, phototherapies, urologic devices, neurologic interfaces, surgical tools, and novel uses of existing therapeutics.

Brian also counsels clients involved in inventorship and priority disputes arising under interference and derivation rules.

Brian’s clients include universities, research hospitals, and companies of all sizes, many of which build on licensed technology. For example, Brian advised BioTrove, Inc., a Massachusetts-based laboratory equipment maker in all aspects of intellectual property strategy including the development and prosecution of its patent portfolio (including portfolios licensed from two leading research universities) and its trademarks for several years prior to and through its acquisition by Life Technologies and spinoff of Biocius Life Sciences (later acquired by Agilent Technologies). (The BioTrove transaction was listed as one of the top 10 in vitro diagnostic deals in 2009 by Price Waterhouse Coopers in their publication Diagnostics 2011).

Brian works to streamline patent prosecution and leverage legal developments to maximize the value of clients’ patent portfolios. For example, Brian frequently counsels clients regarding the use of patent prosecution highway programs to leverage allowance of a patent application in one country to expedite examination in other countries. Brian also frequently counsels clients on challenges to patent term adjustment awards that extend the enforceable life of an issued patent.

Prior to joining Saul Ewing, Brian was, for seven years, an associate and technology specialist for an international AmLaw 100 firm, where he counseled companies on how to identify, protect, and grow their intellectual property assets.

Recent Articles by Brian Landry

What the USPTO’s Reexamination Remand for HID Means for Estoppel, Timing and Strategy

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a significant Decision on Remand on Monday, April 27, 2026, clarifying when estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) attaches and—critically—what it means to “request” a proceeding “before the Office.” The ruling arises from an increasingly common set of circumstances—HID had initially filed an inter partes review (IPR) against CPC Patent Technologies’ U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705, and subsequently requested ex parte reexamination requests of that same patent. Monday’s decision clarifies that a party is estopped from “requesting” ex parte reexam at the moment the IPR final written decision issues when the USPTO has yet to order ex parte reexam.

May 3, 2026

(Extensions of) Time May Not Be on the Side of USPTO Applicants with Long-Toothed Priority Claims

Pending continuation applications advantageously provide flexibility to tailor patent claims as infringing products enter the market. Historically, it has often been advantageous to file such applications without fees and utilize extensions of time to essentially “buy” time before an examiner acts on the application (which may require substantive work and associated attorneys’ fees to draft a response, etc.). Also, applicants may wish to delay paying U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) fees for a variety of reasons including managing liquidity.

April 21, 2025

What’s in a Name[ly]?: Considerations for Using ‘Namely’ in Trademark Applications

Although the word “namely” appears in over 4 million trademark applications according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Trademark Search portal, experience—and the recent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision, In Re Locus Link USA, No. EXPUNGEMENT 2022-100 (TTAB 2024)—suggests that many do not appreciate the legal significance of the term.

November 21, 2024

View All Posts

Past Events with Brian Landry

Virtual PTAB Masters™ 2026

January 29-30, 2026