International Trade Commission

• Certain Flocked Swabs, Products Containing Flocked Swabs, And Methods of Using Same (337-TA-1279) - Representing Copan Italia and Copan Industries as complainants in the International Trade Commission, asserting patent infringement claims against global competitors in a case involving the use of flocking technology (common in the textile industry) in the production of biological specimen collection swabs. Evidentiary hearing is scheduled for June 2022.
• 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.
• Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726) - Represented complainant in three-patent ITC case. Filed in June 2010 against converged device manufacturers and focused on digital camera technology found in cell phones, laptop computers, and personal digital assistants, the matter went to trial in April 2011. The result was successful licenses with three out of four respondents, including recognized leaders in the electronics device manufacturing space.

Federal District Court

• Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., 6:19-cv-432-ADA (lead case) (W.D. Tex.) – Represented plaintiff Parus asserting two voice controlled information retrieval patents against consolidated defendants Apple (Siri), Google (Google Assistant), Amazon.com (Alexa), Samsung (Bixby), and LG in the Western District of Texas.
• Netlist Inc. v. SK hynix Inc., et al., 6:20-cv-194, 6:20-cv-525 (W.D. Tex.) – Represented Netlist, Inc. in asserting multiple patents essential to JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards against the Korean-based memory company SK hynix in the Western District of Texas. The WDTX case was the capstone of a years-long representation of Netlist adverse to SK hynix, across two ITC Investigations, two cases in the Central District of California, multiple IPRs before the PTAB, and multiple trips to the Federal Circuit. Successfully persuaded the Federal Circuit on mandamus that Judge Albright in WDTX did not err in denying SK hynix’s motion to transfer the case to California, and ran the table on all disputed claim terms at Markman. These successes leveraged a global settlement for Netlist, including a $40 million license payment and a supply commitment from SK hynix worth $600 million in preferred access to DRAM components in a constrained market.
• CellInfo, LLC v. American Tower Corporation, et al., (D. Mass., 1:18-cv-11250) – Defended American Tower Corporation in a software trade secret action in federal district court and in confidential arbitration.
• CloudConnect, LLC et al v. GraVoc Associates, Inc., 1:18-cv-10736 (D.Mass) – Lead counsel for plaintiff in trade secret litigation asserting nine counts of federal and state trade secret theft, unfair competition, and other claims, seeking declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctions, statutory and enhanced damages, and the return or destruction of clients’ stolen confidential information. Achieved extremely favorable and early settlement, resolving all claims.
• Netlist Inc. v. SK hynix Inc., et al. (CDCA 8:16-cv-01605; 8:17-cv-01030) - Represented plaintiff Netlist, Inc., a California memory module company, in asserting eight patents against the Korean-based memory company, SK hynix. The technology claimed by the asserted patents is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards.
• Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. ASUS Computer International, Inc. et al. (D. Del. 1:13-cv-864) - Represented the former Silicon Graphics in numerous litigations against multinational electronics companies in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of novel graphics, microprocessor, and LCD patents. All of these cases settled favorably. In the ASUS matter, Mintz persuaded the court to adopt the “stream-of-commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction despite conflicting precedent in the District of Delaware, and ASUS’s motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety.
• The Coca-Cola Company v. Johanna Foods, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 1:10-cv-3081) - Represented a major regional chilled-beverage supplier in defending design patent and trade dress infringement allegations by an international beverage supplier regarding clear plastic PET product packaging in the Northern District of Georgia. Case settled favorably.
• Japan Cash Machine Co. Ltd. et al v. MEI, Inc. (D.N.J. 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.
• Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (D. Mass. 4:10-cv-40124) - Represented a clinical diagnostic testing supplier appealing a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to the Federal District of Massachusetts regarding the priority of invention of patent claims covering nucleic acid hybridization assays. Obtained reversal of adverse decision by the BPAI on behalf of client.

Pro Bono

• Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (June 15, 2020) – In landmark Supreme Court case, led amicus briefing team on behalf of nearly 40 Law & History Professors in support of employee Aimee Stephens, fired due to her transgender status. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• AIDS Support Group of Cape Cod, Inc. v. Town of Barnstable & Others, 477 Mass. 296 (2017) - Led amicus briefing team before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of approximately 30 public health-related amici, including some of the largest hospital systems and health insurers in Massachusetts, in support of privately-run hypodermic needle access programs. In a case of first impression, the unanimous court agreed that the law does not prohibit such programs, which support the public health and welfare by helping to limit the spread of blood-borne diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C.
• J.S. v. J.G., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 1104 (Oct. 5, 2018) – Led the briefing team and successfully argued before the Massachusetts Appeals Court in an appeal from the denial of client’s request for a c. 209A Order of Protection and No Contact against an abusive family member. The Appeals Court vacated the trial court’s decision on multiple grounds and remanded for a new trial.