Skip to main content

Adam S. Rizk

Member

[email protected]

+1.617.348.4709

Share:

Adam focuses his practice on high tech patent litigation in the International Trade Commission (ITC) and Federal District Courts, patent valuation, and strategic counseling.  In addition to his legal training and graduate studies in electrical engineering, Adam’s practice is complemented by years of experience in the industry, in which he served as a principal engineer at BAE Systems before becoming a lawyer.  He has handled various matters involving complex technology such as microprocessors, digital and RF circuitry, LCD display and LED lighting systems, microelectromechanical systems (MEMs), audio and video processing, VLSI design, and software.    

In his role as a patent litigator, he has driven multiple ITC investigations to successful outcomes.  Among other things, this involved managing interdisciplinary teams of technologists, expert witnesses, and litigators, coordinating complex discovery, examining witnesses, and oral argument at trial.  Additionally, Adam served as the primary liaison in multiple German enforcement programs, where he worked closely with foreign counsel to develop the strategy for infringement and nullity proceedings.

Prior to joining Mintz, Adam worked with the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Education

  • Suffolk University Law School (JD, summa cum laude)
  • Northeastern University (MSEE)
  • New Jersey Institute of Technology (BSEE)

Experience

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Semiconductor Devices, Integrated Circuits, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1149) Mintz represented Innovative Foundry Technologies as part of a global enforcement strategy to protect 5 asserted patents relating to semiconductor fabrication and packaging. Respondents for the ITC matter included Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Qualcomm Incorporated, MediaTek, and Vizio. Cases were simultaneously filed in U.S. District Court and internationally in Germany and China. The investigation was instituted in March of 2019 and resolved favorably prior to the conclusion of discovery in August of 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.
  • Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) - Represented owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents, Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, 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, Enterprise System Technologies, S.A.R.L. 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 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.
  • Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) - Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC, and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Cases were filed between late 2011 and early 2012, and all were resolved by the end of January 2013. The technology at issue relates to LCD panels, central processor units, graphics processing units, and other microprocessor technology. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space – Apple, LG, Research in Motion, Samsung, and Sony.
  • Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-804) – Represented the complainant (plaintiff) that makes LED lighting systems for use in film and TV production, at the International Trade Commission. The ITC handed down its Final Initial Determination of infringement on September 7, 2012. On January 17, 2013, the ITC issued a General Exclusion Order (GEO) against respondents based in both China and the United States. The result in this case is particularly notable because it is rare for the ITC to issue a GEO due to the rigorous criteria and careful balancing of interests that apply to requests for GEOs.

Federal District Court

  • GlobalFoundries US Inc. v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd., et al. (WDTX, 6:19-cv-00489, 00491, 00492, 00494, and 00496) Representing GlobalFoundries US Inc. in multiple district court actions involving the direct and indirect infringement of four of its patents related to semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, and products containing the same. Additional defendants in these actions include, Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, nVidia, Arista, Asus, and Lenovo.
  • MEI, Inc. v. JCM American Corp., et al (DNJ 1:09-cv-351) – Represented a bill validator supplier adverse to its principal competitor in the Federal District of New Jersey and in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding patents directed to antifraud technology.

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

IPRs and Other Post-Grant Porceedings Viewpoint Thumbnail

IPR and Fast-Moving District Court Litigation: PTAB Formalizes the Analysis for Balancing Efficiency and Fairness

July 17, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Daniel Weinger, Adam Rizk, Serge Subach

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has designated two key institution decisions as “Informative.”  With these informative decisions, the PTAB has provided guidance on how the PTAB will apply efficiency and fairness factors that guide decisions to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) when there is a fast-moving parallel district court litigation that may reach trial before the PTAB’s final written decision would be due.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Shifting “Sands”: New Facts on the Ground Justify Institution of a Previously-Denied IPR

June 25, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Daniel Weinger, Serge Subach

In a rare reversal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) reassessed the Fintiv factors in a decision on a petition for rehearing of a previous decision denying institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”).  
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Infringement Contentions: Fair Notice?

February 18, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Catherine Xu

Some respondents at the ITC have taken advantage of using infringement contentions as a procedural tool to deny patent owners from getting their day in court.  In some investigations, respondents have gone so far as to delay their own production of discovery until after the infringement contention deadline, then claim lack of fair notice when the patent owner uses the late discovery in its expert report.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Mintz is recognized as among the top ten firms in ITC Section 337 litigation by Patexia in its inaugural "ITC Intelligence Report". We are pleased to be among the firms included in this publication and thrilled that it has come on the heels of a great year at the ITC for the Mintz team.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail

Efficacy of Preliminary Injunction Against Apple Called into Question

December 12, 2018 | Alert | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Robert Moore, Catherine Xu

Read about the preliminary injunction issued by the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court in China against Apple for its infringement of two Qualcomm patents.
Read more

Mintz Secures Victory for AMD at the ITC

April 17, 2018 | Alert | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk

Led by Michael Renaud, Jim Wodarski, Mike McNamara, Bill Meunier, Aarti Shah, and Adam Rizk, the Mintz team secured an important victory for its client Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The case was filed against LG, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs, and it involved complex graphics circuit technology.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail

AI: The Path of the Future or Industry Hype?

March 19, 2018 | Advisory | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Jinnie Reed

Companies in many industries are integrating artificial intelligence into their products despite a decline in US AI patent filings driven by uncertainty about the patentability of software. Advances in machine learning are spurring the increased interest in AI.
Read more

Federal Circuit Revisits Willfulness Post Halo

September 29, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Adam Rizk

On remand from the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016), the Federal Circuit recently issued a revised decision in Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 2013-1668 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The decision provides insight into the court’s interpretation of the Halo standard and enhanced damages.
Read more

News & Press

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.
News Thumbnail
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.”