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).
Education
- Northeastern University (JD)
- Earlham College (BA)
Experience
International Trade Commission
- Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof (337-TA-1089) – Represented Netlist, Inc. as complainant before the ITC against Korean-based memory company SK Hynix. The matter involved patents related to server memory module products, including technology that is essential to certain JEDEC memory standards. Following oral hearing in October 2019, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination finding infringement of one of Netlist’s patents and recommended a limited exclusion order be issued.
- 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.
Pro Bono
- 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
Arbitration
- Counsel for respondent in commercial arbitration involving allegations of software trade secret theft in the cell tower industry
Recent Insights
Viewpoints
Mintz Rings in 2020 with Top 10 Recognition for ITC Practice
January 6, 2020|Blog
News & Press
On an NBC Boston news segment, Mintz Member Drew DeVoogd discussed the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 15 decision in the consolidated cases captioned Bostock v. Clayton County, which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Mintz Member Andrew DeVoogd was quoted in an article published by Bloomberg Law on how an increase in telework to reduce the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) could engender new technological habits among attorneys that change how law is practiced.
Mintz Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud and Members James Wodarski and Andrew DeVoogd co-authored an article published in the February 2020 issue of The Licensing Journal that examined opportunities for remedies including injunctive relief as redress against infringement for standard essential patent (SEP) owners at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Viewpoints
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
Mintz Rings in 2020 with Top 10 Recognition for ITC Practice
January 6, 2020 | Blog
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
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
On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Fox Factory v. SRAM, Nos. 2018-2024 and 2018-2025, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in a pair of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027 (“the ’027 patent”) were not invalid as obvious, and remanded for further proceedings.
Read more
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
When licensing discussions with an intransigent implementer break down, SEP owners face a difficult question: what remedies are available (injunctive relief or damages) in each U.S. court (International Trade Commission and U.S. district courts) as redress against infringement?
Read more
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
On December 5, 2019, Judge David C. Godbey of the Northern District of Texas denied the defendant Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.’s (“Diebold”) motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), in Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold, Inc. et al., 3-16-cv-00364 (N.D. Tex.). Diebold filed the motion after the Federal Circuit reversed the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) finding of infringement in a parallel Section 337 investigation. Instead, the Federal Circuit held that the one patent in the suit was invalid due to indefiniteness.
Read more
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
Nearly six years ago, the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness promulgated a “totality of the circumstances test” for awarding reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases under 35 U.S.C. §285. As lower courts have applied this standard, it has become clear that the motivation and conduct of the losing party is a focal point of the exceptionality analysis. However, two recent decisions emphasize that bad faith arguments and litigation tactics—by both parties and in all stages of litigation—are critical to the exceptionality analysis in Section 285 attorney fee awards.
Read more
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
In a recent decision clarifying the legal standards of the International Trade Commission’s domestic industry requirement, the Commission has upheld, with modified reasoning, Chief Administrative Law Judge Bullock’s initial determination (“ID”), finding no domestic industry in Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Comm’n Op. (Oct. 28, 2019).
Read more
ITC suggests 5% Threshold for Domestic Industry Assessment; order may impact tech companies
September 23, 2019 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Aarti Shah, Andrew DeVoogd, Matthew Karambelas, Nana Liu
Recently, Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) Bullock of the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), in Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Order No. 77, suggested that “significant” or “substantial” domestic industry investments must amount to greater than 5% of domestic industry product sales in the United States.
Read more
International Trade Commission ALJ Holds that Relying on Pre-Suit Testing Waives Privilege Protection
September 10, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Kara E. Grogan
A recent order from International Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge Elliott provides helpful guidance regarding a common ITC discovery dispute: whether a party may withhold from discovery as work product pre-suit test results and methods where those results and methods were relied upon in forming the pleaded allegations of the complaint or to support a party’s contentions.
Read more
Alexa: What is venue?
August 23, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Serge Subach
A recent decision from the Northern District of New York provides a detailed outline for analyzing venue in patent infringement cases, and may provide facts that companies with equipment installed in other districts should understand.
Read more
News & Press
Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on LGBTQ Rights
June 16, 2020
On an NBC Boston news segment, Mintz Member Drew DeVoogd discussed the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 15 decision in the consolidated cases captioned Bostock v. Clayton County, which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Remote Work May Change Attorneys’ Habits After Pandemic
March 31, 2020
Mintz Member Andrew DeVoogd was quoted in an article published by Bloomberg Law on how an increase in telework to reduce the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) could engender new technological habits among attorneys that change how law is practiced.
Joint Policy Statement and Recent Cases Confirm That Injunctive Relief on SEPs is Available at the ITC
March 19, 2020
Mintz Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud and Members James Wodarski and Andrew DeVoogd co-authored an article published in the February 2020 issue of The Licensing Journal that examined opportunities for remedies including injunctive relief as redress against infringement for standard essential patent (SEP) owners at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
The PTAB Has Another Appointment With the Federal Circuit + SEPs Have a Little More Bite at the ITC
October 30, 2019
The October 29 edition of the Skilled in the Art newsletter published by Law.com reported that Mintz achieved a favorable Notice of Initial Determination at the U.S. International Trade Commission on behalf of the firm’s client Netlist, Inc., a California-based technology company focused on developing innovative server memory module products, including technology that is essential to certain JEDEC memory standards. Significantly, this is the first time since 2013 that a Section 337 violation has been found based on a standard-essential patent.
SK Hynix Memory Products Infringe Netlist IP, ITC Judge Finds
October 22, 2019
Law360 reported that a U.S. International Trade Commission judge ruled that Korean manufacturer SK Hynix infringed on California-based technology company, and Mintz client, Netlist, Inc.’s standard essential patent related to server memory modules.
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.
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.
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.
Novel Outcome at the ITC: Patent Claims Invalidated under Alice in the 100-Day Pilot Program
January 3, 2017
In this column, Mintz attorneys James Wodarski, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, and Matthew Karambelas analyze the decision made by the ITC about patent claims that have been negated by Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International in the 100-Day Pilot Program.
Patent Co. Says Deal With Honda Ends Infotainment Probe
August 22, 2016
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.”