Drew is an experienced patent litigator and trial attorney. He represents clients in high stakes patent and trade secret litigation, frequently in International Trade Commission investigations. He also advises clients in complex IP licensing and related transactions. As a trusted advisor and fierce advocate, Drew excels at helping clients make sense of nuanced legal issues while developing and executing effective strategies to protect and leverage intellectual property.
Drew focuses his intellectual property practice in complex patent litigation, with an emphasis on Section 337 investigations before the International Trade Commission (ITC). He regularly leads large litigation teams through all phases of fast-paced ITC investigations and has first-chair trial experience in multiple ITC evidentiary hearings. Drew also litigates patent infringement and trade secret cases in federal district courts across the country, represents clients on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and coordinates with foreign counsel in international patent infringement and nullity actions.
On the transactional side, Drew advises on the intellectual property-related aspects of private equity, M&A and other corporate transactions. In particular, he has participated in negotiating and closing numerous complex patent licensing and sale transactions, including elaborate multiparty agreements involving thousands of assets.
Drew works in diverse industries and technology areas, including embedded microprocessors, liquid crystal displays, graphics processors, memory controllers, consumer telecommunications systems, converged devices and related software and operating systems, mobile communications infrastructure, voice-recognition, standard-compliant memory systems and their components, LED-based lighting systems, thermoplastics, and electrical motors.
Drew is a member of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee. His own pro bono work includes representing asylum-seekers and ICE detainees, as well as clients of the Mintz Domestic Violence Program in obtaining and extending 209A abuse prevention orders on behalf of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. He has also coordinated pro bono amicus briefs at the appellate level, including before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Title VII case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.
Prior to joining Mintz, Drew practiced with a national law firm. Prior to that, he clerked for Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Barbara A. Lenk (then of the Massachusetts Appeals Court).
- Northeastern University (JD)
- Earlham College (BA)
International Trade Commission
- 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.) – Represent 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. Trial is scheduled for the summer of 2021.
- Netlist Inc. v. SK hynix Inc., et al., 6:20-cv-194-ADA, 6:20-cv-525-ADA (W.D. Tex.) - Represent plaintiff Netlist, Inc. in asserting three patents essential to JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards against the Korean-based memory company, SK hynix in the Western District of Texas. Trial is scheduled for October of 2021.
- 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-1605; 8:17-cv-01030) - Represent 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.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (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) - Co-authored an amicus brief to 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 a case of first impression, the unanimous SJC agreed with the plaintiff and the amici that there is no restriction in the law on privately-run hypodermic needle access programs, which are designed 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 reversed the trial court’s decision on multiple grounds and remanded for a new trial
- Counsel for respondent in commercial arbitration involving allegations of software trade secret theft in the cell tower industry
News & Press
Fractured Federal Circuit Panel Finds That Sovereign Immunity Does Not Prevent Exclusive Licensee from Pursuing Unlicensed Infringement Alone
July 28, 2020 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Kara E. Grogan
No Fishing Allowed: Discovery of Litigation Funding Requires Articulation of Relevance Beyond Speculation
June 18, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Catherine Xu
January 6, 2020 | Blog
Fox Factory v. SRAM – According to CAFC, No Presumption of Nexus for Bicycle Chainring Patents; IPR Decision Reversed and Remanded
January 2, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Andrew DeVoogd, Joe Rutkowski
Out with the old, and in with the new: joint policy statement and recent cases confirm that injunctive relief on standard-essential patents is available at the ITC
December 23, 2019 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Andrew DeVoogd, Matthew Galica
District Court denies motion to dismiss despite Federal Circuit’s finding of patent invalidity in appeal of parallel ITC investigation
December 18, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Nana Liu
Counterproductive and Cost-Increasing Litigation Tactics Are Objectively Unreasonable in Section 285 Attorney Fee Award Analysis
November 20, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Kara E. Grogan
ITC rejects minimum threshold requirement for domestic industry economic prong and emphasizes the importance of contextual evidence and case-by-case analyses
November 4, 2019 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Aarti Shah, Andrew DeVoogd, Matthew Karambelas, Nana Liu
September 23, 2019 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Aarti Shah, Andrew DeVoogd, Matthew Karambelas, Nana Liu
International Trade Commission ALJ Holds that Relying on Pre-Suit Testing Waives Privilege Protection
September 10, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Kara E. Grogan
News & Press
June 16, 2020
March 31, 2020
Joint Policy Statement and Recent Cases Confirm That Injunctive Relief on SEPs is Available at the ITC
March 19, 2020
October 30, 2019
October 22, 2019
The article noted that the Mintz team representing Netlist includes Member and Chair of the Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud, along with Members James Wodarski, Drew DeVoogd, Steve Akerley, Aarti Shah, and Associates Kristina Cary, Matthew Galica, and Tiffany Knapp.