Skip to main content

Adrian Kwan


[email protected]



Adrian’s practice in intellectual property focuses on trade secrets and patent litigation. Adrian handles nearly all aspects of litigation, from pre-filing investigation through pre-trial preparation, and has extensive experience in first-chair and second-chair deposition. Adrian has experience in various technology fields, including complex software systems, encryption, speech coding, signal processing, and cellular network infrastructure.

Prior to joining Mintz, Adrian worked in the Silicon Valley office of an international law firm. During his time there, Adrian was responsible for creating, filing and serving pleadings and motions in federal district courts; drafting numerous motions, pleadings, expert reports, and client update presentations; and managing all aspects of discovery.

While in law school, Adrian served as executive senior editor for the Review of Law and Social Justice. Before his legal career, Adrian spent several years working for a Fortune 500 company as a software engineer, developing complex automated information systems.


  • University of Southern California (JD)
  • San Jose State University (BS)


  • Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al. (E.D. Tex. 4:15-cv-00766) Currently representing defendants in an action for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement related to various aspects of pharmacy automation systems.
  • Intellectual Ventures I and II v. AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile and US Cellular (D. Del. 1:12-cv-00193, D. Del. 13-1668-LPS) Represented plaintiff in two cases involving multiple patents related to various aspects of telecommunications services including 3G and LTE infrastructure, signal processing, encryption, and speech coding.


Viewpoint Thumbnail

Another One Bites the Dust – N.D. Tex. Dismisses Antitrust Claims re FRAND Commitments with Prejudice

September 17, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Joseph Miller, Adrian Kwan

In the latest decision addressing antitrust liability for FRAND commitments, Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn of the Northern District of Texas dismissed a complaint from Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. (“Continental”) alleging, inter alia, violations of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and declaratory judgment as to FRAND obligations against Avanci, LLC (“Avanci”) and various members of its patent pool (collectively, “Defendants”).
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

The Federal Circuit Broadens Application of the Kessler Doctrine

June 23, 2020 | Blog | By Matthew Hurley, Adrian Kwan

Last week, the Federal Circuit invoked the Kessler doctrine in ruling that a district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent infringement suit against Amazon barred the plaintiff’s subsequent lawsuits against Amazon and its customers in In Re PersonalWeb Technologies, Inc.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On February 25, 2019, the Supreme Court denied Power Integrations, Inc.’s (“Power Integrations”) petition for writ of certiorari.  The question presented to the Court was whether a plaintiff who had proven customer demand for an infringing product as a result of the patented feature was entitled to damages based on the entire market value of the product, or if the plaintiff also had to prove that the other unpatented features of the infringing product did not drive customer demand.  The Court’s denial leaves a high burden for patentee’s relying on the Entire Market Value Rule (“EMVR”).
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On November 30, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict awarding Sprint Communications Company, LP (“Sprint”) damages in the amount of $139,800,000.00 USD against Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al., for infringing five patents directed to Voice over IP technology (“VoIP”).
Read more
Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC, (“ATS”) appealed findings of invalidity for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Read more