Skip to main content

Meena Seralathan

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.4851

Share:

Meena is an intellectual property attorney whose practice is focused on patent litigation in Federal District Court, before the US International Trade Commission, and in arbitration, in matters involving patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation.

Meena provides in-depth legal and technical analysis and trial experience in cases involving high tech technologies. Meena has experience in all phases of litigation, including pre-suit diligence, fact and expert discovery, Markman hearings, and trials, and frequently applies her technical expertise in cases requiring source code analysis. Meena also has experience evaluating patents for standard-essential patent pools and evaluating essentiality of patents relating to HEVC, audio codec, and 4G/LTE technology.

Meena brings to her role prior experience drafting and prosecuting US and international patents and responding to patent office actions, including overcoming Alice patent-eligibility rejections in software patent applications. Meena has experience in a broad range of technology areas, including adaptive bitrate streaming, semiconductors, AI and machine learning, malware detection, cybersecurity, networking hardware and software, wireless networks, data encryption, and computer programming. Meena has also, pro bono, assisted a client seeking asylum in the United States and in drafting a Board of Immigration Appeal Brief.

Prior to joining Mintz, Meena served as an assistant district attorney with the Kings County District Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn, New York, where she worked on misdemeanor hearings and jury and bench trials, as well as felony cases, including grand jury presentations. Earlier, she was a patent agent in the New York office of a California-based global law firm and a technical advisor and patent agent at an international law firm based in New York.

In law school, Meena served as executive articles editor of the Brooklyn Journal of International Law as well as an intern with the Children’s Law Center in Brooklyn. While earning her bachelor’s degree, Meena was twice a summer science research fellow at Bryn Mawr College, where she studied recurrent artificial neural networks and developmental robotics, and drafted a code library for the use of a humanoid robot in a computer science course.

Not admitted to practice in Massachusetts.  Admitted to practice only in the State of New York.

Experience

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Integrated Circuits, Mobile Devices Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1335) - Represented Daedalus Prime against Samsung Electronics and Qualcomm Corporation in an ITC investigation involving four patents related to power management techniques in computer processors. The case against Samsung was dismissed following a confidential license and settlement agreement. Evidentiary hearing involving the remaining parties was held in August 2023 and ultimately settled before a final decision on the merits.
  • Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same (337-TA-1222) – Represented DivX, a video codec company headquartered in San Diego, in enforcing patents before the ITC in the District of Delaware. The asserted patents involve innovations relating to digital rights management and streaming media. LG and Samsung settled after the Markman order was issued, leaving TCL as the sole remaining respondent. Shortly after the seven day evidentiary hearing held in July 2021, one of the two principal suppliers of the accused streaming technology to TCL, namely Roku, stepped in and took a license to DivX’s portfolio, thus partially resolving DivX’s claims against TCL. Prior to the court issuing a decision on the merits, DivX and TCL entered into a bilateral settlement agreement resolving DivX’s remaining claims against TCl and bringing an end to all pending litigation.

Federal District Court

  • CareView Communications, Inc. v. Interactive Digital Solutions, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-07061-HSG (N.D.Cal. 2021). - Represented Interactive Digital Solutions against patent infringement allegations with respect to patient monitoring systems; drove case to favorable settlement following disclosure of non-infringement positions and invalidity contentions. 
  • Innovative Foundry Technologies LLC v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, et al., 6:19-cv-00719 (W.D. Tex) - Represented Plaintiff in enforcing 4 patents related to semiconductor manufacturing technology. The case proceeded through Markman hearing where claims were construed favorably in all four patents and a “not invalid” determination issue in response to an attempt to invalidate one patent entirely. All claims between IFT and SMIC have been confidentially settled.
  • Galaxe.Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. RxSense LLC (Index No. 654114/2019) - Secured summary judgment in New York State Supreme Court Commercial Division on behalf of RxSense, a pharmaceutical benefits manager software developer, in a complex contract and licensing dispute with a vendor.

Arbitration

  • CellInfo, LLC v. American Tower Corporation, et al., (D. Mass., 18-cv-11250) & (AAA Case 01-21-0002-2206): After a weeklong arbitration hearing before the American Arbitration Association, achieved victory in favor of client American Tower “on every cause asserted against it” by the claimant, CellInfo LLC, after nearly five years of litigation that also included the District of Massachusetts and the First Circuit Court of Appeals. CellInfo alleged, among other things, trade secret misappropriation of software, which the Arbitrator ultimately rejected and ordered CellInfo to pay nearly $6 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to American Tower, the prevailing party under the operative contract.
Read less

viewpoints

Supreme Court Holds that States Cannot Copyright Annotated Versions of Their Statutes

April 29, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Graif, Meena Seralathan

On April 27, 2020, the Supreme Court held that annotations to legislative text, even if created by a private contracted party, are not copyrightable materials under 17 U.S.C. §101. Invoking the government edicts doctrine, the Court made explicit the notion that all members of government involved in lawmaking, including state legislators, are barred from being “authors” for purposes of copyright protection.
Read more
Last week, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, reinforced that an accused infringer can be a “prevailing party” for the purposes of seeking attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it successfully invalidates the asserted patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). 
Read more
Last week, the US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released a report detailing its findings on how the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, as well as subsequent USPTO guidance on 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, has affected rates of, and variability between, office action rejections.
Read more
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated a January 24, 2020 decision, finding objective indicia of nonobviousness, such as evidence of long-felt need and industry praise, saved a patent owner’s amended claims from invalidation, as precedential.
Read more
In an April 13, 2020, decision, the Federal Circuit held that neither a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), nor a stay of a patent lawsuit pending the results of a patent reexamination, constitute a final judicial decision for the purposes of recovery of legal fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 
Read more
Read less

Events & Speaking

Speaker
Read less

Recognition & Awards

  • Phi Delta Phi Legal Honor Society

Read less

Involvement

  • Member, American Bar Association
  • Member, New York City Bar Association
  • Member, South Asian Bar Association of New York
  • Member, Metropolitan Black Bar Association
  • Member, Boston Bar Association
  • Member, Boston Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Participant, 2023 ITC TLA Mock Hearing Program
  • Mentor, 2023-2024 LCLD Success in Law School Mentoring Program
Read less