Larry R. Laycock

Attorney at Law Shareholder

Larry R. Laycock

Office: 801.297.1850

Direct: 435.575.1388

VCard

Chambers
  • Contact Larry   

    Attorney Contact

    Contact form on single attorney page
    • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Larry R. Laycock

Attorney at Law Shareholder

Larry has extensive experience as lead trial counsel in complex and intellectual property litigation. His practice includes patent, trademark, trade secret, trade dress, copyright, and related complex litigation matters. He also has substantial experience in appellate, transactional, licensing, and legal opinion preparation for intellectual property matters. Larry has counseled clients regarding a wide range of technologies, including pharmaceutical, chemical, biotechnology and life sciences, electronic data storage, medical devices, nutritional supplements, exercise equipment, and thin film deposition, among others.

Prior to joining Maschoff Brennan, Larry was an equity shareholder at a major IP law firm in Salt Lake City, where he served as a member of the Board of Directors. During law school, Larry was a member of the National Moot Court Team, contributing author of the Best Brief in the National competition, and winner of the American College of Trial Lawyers Medal for Excellence in Advocacy. He also received the A.H. Christensen Memorial Advocacy Award for Excellence in Advocacy.

In his spare time, Larry enjoys being with his family, traveling, reading, and writing books with his wife Lisa. They are the authors of four novels.

  • Education
    • J.D., cum laude, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, 1986
    • B.A., Brigham Young University, 1983
  • Practice Focus
    • Complex IP Litigation, Inter Partes Conflicts, Mediation and Arbitration
    • Patent Infringement, U. S., Asia and Europe
    • Trademark Infringement
    • Copyright Infringement
    • Trade Dress Infringement
    • Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
    • Patent Related Antitrust Actions
    • International Trade Commission
    • Trademark Oppositions, U. S. and Europe
    • Due Diligence Investigations of IP Portfolios
    • Arbitration
    • Mediation
    • Licensing and Transactional work and related counseling
    • Non-Competition and Non-Disclosure Agreement Enforcement
    • Appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals and Utah Supreme Court
    • Appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Other Regional Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
    • Appeals before U.S. Supreme Court
  • Technical Experience
    • Pharmaceutical, Chemical, Biotechnology & Life Sciences
    • Material Sciences
    • Chemical Deposition Used In Integrated Circuit Manufacturing
    • Mechanics & Mechanical Engineering
    • Exercise & Training Equipment
    • Medical and Dental Devices
    • Electronics & Electrical Engineering
    • Electrical & Electromechanical Systems
  • Professional Admissions & Associations
    • Utah State Bar
    • American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
    • International Bar Association
    • American Bar Association
    • David K. Winder IP Inn of Court
  • Second Language
    • Spanish
  • Awards & Recognition
  • Representative Matters
    • Desktop Direct, Inc. v. Digital Equipment, Corp., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (affirming favorable appellate decision).
    • Finisar v. DirecTV, Case No. 1:05-cv-00264-RC (EDTX 2008) (obtained nine figure judgment after jury verdict finding willful patent infringement on behalf of client).
    • Probert, et. al v. The Clorox Company, Case No. 1:07-cv-00139-DB (D. Utah 2007) (defense judgment in favor of client in patent infringement case and summary affirmance before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit).
    • LH Taylor Associates, Inc. v. The Clorox Company, Case No. 6:07-cv-00383-LED (EDTX 2007) (negotiated dismissal of patent infringement claims after successful litigation).
    • Steamway Corp., et. al. v. The Clorox Company, Case No. 1:2009cv00991 (Indiana Scott County Superior Court 2009) (negotiated dismissal of trade secret misappropriation claims after successful litigation).
    • Lifetime Products v. Alton Industries Inc., et. al., Case No. 8:02-cv-00350 (CDCA 2004) (favorable settlement agreement obtained for client in patent infringement case after successful litigation).
    • Lifetime Products, Inc. v. GSC Technologies, Case No. 1:03-cv-00062-TC (D. Utah 2005) (favorable settlement for client in patent infringement case after obtaining preliminary injunction).
    • Jumpsport, Inc. v. Jumpking, Inc., Case No. 01-cv-4986 (NDCal 2004) (jury verdict favorable to client in defense of patent infringement claims).
    • Free Motion Fitness Inc. v. Cybex International, Inc., Case No. 1:10-cv-00185-DS (D. Utah 2001) (negotiated favorable settlement after affirmance of client’s claim construction position at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit).
    • Cybergym Research, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-00527-DF (EDTX 2006) (favorable settlement during jury trial after successful cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses).
    • ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Horizon Fitness, Inc. et al, Case No. 5:08-cv-00026-DF-CMC (E.D. Tex. 2009) (obtained favorable settlement for client in patent infringement case after successful litigation, including defeating motions to dismiss and obtaining favorable claim construction at a Markman hearing).
    • Nautilus Group, Inc. v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., Case No. 1:02-cv-00109-TC (D. Utah 2006) (obtained large jury verdict in favor of client in false advertising and false patent marking case).
    • Desktop Direct, Inc. v. Digital Equipment, Corp., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) (affirming favorable appellate decision).
    • Jneid v. Novell Inc., Orange County California Superior Court, Complex Division, Case Nos. G039500, G039723, G039725, G039897 (after two multi-month jury trials and an appeal to the Court of Appeals of California, 4th Appellate District, Division 3, in a complex business dispute, a favorable settlement was obtained on behalf of the client).
    • Information Protection and Authentication of Texas, LLC v. Symantec Corp. et al, Case No. 2:08-cv-00484-JRG (EDTX 2008) (negotiated favorable result for client after successful litigation in patent infringement case).
    • Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Spectramed, Inc., 49 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (reversing non-infringement finding and affirming holding of no inequitable conduct).
    • EMC Corp. v. Columbia Data Products, Inc., No. 2:01-CV-00312 (D. Utah Aug. 13, 2004) (ruling on summary judgment against invalidity, against CDP’s counterclaims, and in part for literal infringement).
    • Lifetime Products, Inc. v. IQ Management Corporation, WIPO D2004-07190020 (2004) (enforcing a domain name claim).