Skip to main content

Aarti Shah

Member

[email protected]

+1.202.434.7408

Follow:
Share:

Aarti focuses her practice on patent litigation and has extensive experience as trial counsel. Levering her insider’s view gained during her time spent as a senior investigative attorney in the US International Trade Commission (ITC), Aarti helps her clients develop and implement effective ITC strategies. She is frequently invited to write and comment on ITC litigation matters.

Aarti focuses her practice on patent litigation and has extensive experience as trial counsel, having served in the US International Trade Commission (ITC) as a senior investigative attorney prior to joining Mintz. During her tenure at the ITC’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations, she served as lead counsel for the federal government in seven trials and in over 25 ITC investigations, covering trade secrets, trademarks, and electrical, computer, mechanical, and chemical patents. She particularly enjoys simplifying technology for judges and juries, devising creative and pragmatic strategies, and working closely with in-house counsel.

Prior to her work with the ITC, Aarti practiced as a patent litigator with an international law firm, where she handled district court litigations relating to computer, electrical, mechanical, and pharmaceutical technologies. She also handled appellate litigation before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and provided counsel on patent portfolios and infringement opinions.

Education

  • Georgetown University (JD, with honors)
  • Harvard College (BA, Government, with honors)

Experience

  • Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-1089) Represent Complainant Netlist, Inc., a California memory module company, in the ITC asserting six patents against the Korean-based memory giant SK hynix. The technology claimed by the asserted patents is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards, which are implemented by the accused imported products. The respondents are asserting novel RAND defenses in the ITC, and in a co-pending case involving the same patents in the District Court for the Central District of California. The ITC evidentiary hearing is scheduled for January 2019.
  • Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1044) - Represented Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) as complainant in the ITC asserting patents covering graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets. Respondents include LG Electronics, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs, Inc. (SDI). Achieved settlement with LG prior to the conclusion of expert discovery. Following the evidentiary hearing, the presiding ALJ issued an initial determination finding a violation of Section 337 and recommending the imposition of an exclusion order against the remaining Respondents’ accused products. The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s finding of a violation on August 22, 2018. As a result, the Commission issued orders banning the importation of products made by VIZIO, MediaTek, and SDI and cease and desist orders against VIZIO and SDI, subject to a 60-day presidential review period.
  • Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) - Represented owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents as Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of automotive manufacturers, and infotainment system and chip suppliers. Respondents include Honda, Toyota, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments, Renesas, Harman International, and Fujitsu-Ten. The investigation instituted in January of 2016 and resolved favorably prior to the conclusion of expert discovery in August of 2016.
  • Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) - Represented owner of portfolio of communications and computing patents from former enterprise communications business unit of large multinational innovation company. An ITC investigation was instituted in August 2014 as to respondent entities Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and HTC Corporation. Google participated as an intervenor. The investigation resolved prior to evidentiary hearing in June of 2015.
  • Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884) - Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC. Investigation was instituted in June 2013 and among the respondent entities were Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, and ZTE. Most respondents settled. After an evidentiary hearing held over several days in May 2014, on August 29, 2014 Mintz Levin successfully obtained a recommendation for a Limited Exclusion Order against the remaining respondent, which chose to settle while Commission review of the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination was pending.

Recognition & Awards

  • Executive Committee, ITC Trial Lawyers' Association
  • Member, Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Viewpoint
This article examines a recent International Trade Commission decision that opens up the ITC to complainants in an earlier phase of product development.
Viewpoint
In an Initial Determination finding that Fujifilm violated Section 337 by infringing two patents held by Sony, ALJ Cheney found another patent invalid after ruling that inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel does not apply to the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) Office of Unfair Imports Investigations (“OUII”) Staff.  In Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, Investigation 337-TA-1058, ALJ Cheney remarked that even if IPR estoppel prevents a respondent from raising certain references during an investigation before the ITC, IPR estoppel does not prevent Staff from raising those same references to invalidate a patent where Staff was not a party to the IPR.  Id. at 106-07.
Viewpoint
Read about an International Trade Commission in which a judge ruled that Apple infringed a valid Qualcomm patent, but recommended against an exclusion order for Qualcomm.
A recent International Trade Commission decision, Vacuum Cleaning Devices, improves a patent owner’s ability to demonstrate that it possesses a statutorily required “domestic industry” and can therefore obtain relief from the Commission when others infringe its intellectual property. This alert reviews the Vacuum Cleaning Devices ruling, which serves to better align the statutory purpose of the ITC’s domestic industry requirement with contemporary business practices.
A recent decision by the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) improves intellectual property holders’ ability to prove that they have a “domestic industry” and obtain relief for infringement from the Commission. 
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018, the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) published the final changes to its rules of practice and procedure. The Commission stated that the changes are intended to both modernize and simplify Commission practice as well as to increase the speed and efficiency of investigations.
The public version of ALJ Shaw’s Initial Determination (ID) in U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation Certain Magnetic Data Storage Tapes and Cartridges Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1012 (1012 Investigation), provides important guidance on enforcement of standard-essential patents (SEPs) in the ITC. 
In a first of its kind decision with important ramifications for patentees, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) denied a petition to suspend or temporarily rescind remedial orders issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-945 pending appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) separate finding that the patent claims at issue are invalid.
On May 17, 2017, the International Trade Commission (ITC) reversed an ALJ’s ruling and found a violation of Section 337 in Certain Air Mattress Systems, Components Thereof and Methods of using the Same (“Certain Air Mattress Systems”), Inv. No. 337-TA-971, due to the importation of certain air mattresses, and components of air mattresses, by the named respondents.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued Final Written Decisions regarding Cisco’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,377,577 (the “’577 Patent”) and 7,023,853 (the “’853 Patent”) on May 25, 2017 and U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (the “’668 Patent”) on June 1, 2017.

News & Press

Member Aarti Shah authored this column discussing what brand owners need to know to successfully combat threats regarding knockoff beauty products. Prior to joining the firm, Aarti served as a senior investigative attorney with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
Aarti Shah, a Member in the Mintz DC office, authored an article in Women’s Wear Daily on knockoffs, how their presence negatively impacts brand companies during the holiday season, and how acquiring a general exclusion order from the U.S. International Trade Commission could be the solution.
Mintz Members and intellectual property attorneys Mike Renaud, Aarti Shah and Jim Wodarski collaborated on an article published by Financier Worldwide Magazine discussing standard-essential patents.
Aarti Shah, an Intellectual Property Member in the Mintz D.C. office, was quoted in a Law360 article on the decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission that maintained an import ban on products found to infringe patents, even after the PTAB had declared the patents invalid.
Aarti Shah, a Member of the Mintz Washington, D.C. office, authored an article published in Financier Worldwide about the upswing in patent litigation related to the automobile industry.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has announced it's launching an investigation into whether thermoplastic parts used in certain BMW, Honda, and Toyota vehicle models have infringed five patents owned by Intellectual Ventures LLC.
IP Division Head Michael Renaud, Member Aarti Shah, and Associate Adam Rizk authored this Financier Worldwide article discussing the ITC's statement that it will treat standard-essential patents the same way it treats all other patents asserted in a Section 337 investigation.
Mintz Boston Members Michael Renaud and James Wodarski, Washington, D.C. Member Aarti Shah, and Boston Associate Adam Rizk authored this Law360 article on the newly-issued ITC statement discounting the idea that an SEP patent owner cannot bring infringement cases before the commission.
A team of intellectual property attorneys – Members James Wodarski and Aarti Shah – authored this Financier Worldwide article discussing the rapid increase seen in general exclusion orders from the U.S. International Trade Commission over the past few years.
Mintz Members James Wodarski and Aarti Shah authored this Law360 article highlighting the option that brand, trademark, and design patent owners have when fighting counterfeits and knockoffs of obtaining general exclusion orders from the U.S. International Trade Commission.
This Law360 feature article notes Honda’s removal from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s investigation into several foreign automakers’ “importation of vehicles with infotainment systems that allegedly infringed several patents.”

Events

Panelist
Apr
13
2018

An Overview of Section 337 Investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission

ITC Trial Lawyers Association, Boston Patent Law Association, and Suffolk University Law School

Suffolk University Law School Boston, MA

Speaker
Mar
6
2018
Panelist
Nov
12
2015

2015 ITC Trial Lawyers Association Annual Meeting

International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association

Ronald Reagan Building, International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.

Speaker
Speaker
Feb
22
2015

7th Annual Advanced Forum on ITC Litigation and Enforcement

American Conference Institute

Mandarin Oriental, Washington, DC