Skip to main content

Andrew H. DeVoogd

Member

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1611

Follow:
Share:

Drew helps sophisticated clients solve complex problems at the intersection of intellectual property, business, and international trade. A trusted advisor and steady courtroom advocate, Drew excels at developing and driving successful strategies to protect and leverage IP, or to defend against accusations of infringement or misappropriation.

A seasoned litigator and first-chair trial attorney, Drew has significant experience in intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patent disputes and trade secret claims. He regularly leads large teams of lawyers and experts through all phases of IP litigation, including in patent cases involving standard-essential patents and in trade secret misappropriation actions, at the International Trade Commission, in federal district courts around the country, and in alternative dispute resolution settings. Comfortable on his feet, Drew has extensive first chair trial, Markman, and motion argument experience. For example, in a recent bet-the-company jury victory in a patent infringement action brought by a client’s direct competitor, among other witnesses Drew cross-examined the patent inventor and the plaintiff’s damages expert on the way to a complete defense verdict.

Drew also advises clients on intellectual property licensing, purchases, and sales, some involving SEPs, patent pools, and thousands of assets. He has participated in negotiating and closing numerous patent-focused cross-border transactions, including complex settlement, licensing, purchase, and sale agreements among multinational electronics companies.

Working in diverse industries at all levels of the supply chain, Drew has experience with, among other technologies, embedded microprocessors, graphics processors and displays, telecommunications systems and infrastructure, video compression, converged devices, automobile componentry, voice-recognition, memory systems and controllers, LEDs, and DRM.

The recipient of the 2020 Richard Mintz Pro Bono Award and shortlisted by Chambers for the 2023 Pro Bono Attorney of the Year, Drew is a member of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee. He has an active pro bono practice in areas such as LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and public health. At the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, Drew led an amicus briefing team on behalf of Aimee Stephens, one of the employee plaintiffs in the landmark Title VII case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (June 15, 2020).

Drew is also an adjunct professor at the Northeastern University School of Law, where he teaches Intellectual Property.

Drew helps sophisticated clients solve complex problems at the intersection of intellectual property, business, and international trade. A trusted advisor and steady courtroom advocate, Drew excels at developing and driving successful strategies to protect and leverage IP, or to defend against accusations of infringement or misappropriation.

Experience

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Semiconductor Devices, Integrated Circuits, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1149) – Represented Innovative Foundry Technologies as part of a global enforcement strategy to protect five asserted patents relating to semiconductor fabrication and packaging. Respondents for the ITC matter included Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Qualcomm, 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.
  • 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

  • SRAM LLC v. Princeton CarbonWorks, Inc., 9:21-cv-80581-RKA (S.D.Fla.) – Represented defendant Princeton CarbonWorks (PCW) in bet-the-company litigation, achieving a complete jury trial victory in the Southern District of Florida. SRAM, the second largest bicycle component manufacturer in the world, sued on two patents relating to high-end carbon fiber bike wheels and sought to put PCW out of business. After a two-week trial in February 2023, Mintz persuaded a nine-person jury to reach a defense verdict of no infringement on either patent, and no damages.
  • 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., 18-cv-11250) & (AAA Case 01-21-0002-2206) - After a weeklong arbitration hearing before the American Arbitration Association, achieved victory in favor of client American Tower “on every cause asserted against it” by the claimant, CellInfo LLC, after nearly five years of litigation that also included the District of Massachusetts and the First Circuit Court of Appeals. CellInfo alleged, among other things, trade secret misappropriation of software, which the Arbitrator ultimately rejected and ordered CellInfo to pay nearly $6 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to American Tower, the prevailing party under the operative contract.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • RoadRunner Recycling v. Recycle Track Systems, et al., 23-cv-4804 (NDCal) - Currently representing defendants RecycleSmart Solutions and Recycle Track Systems in a trade secrets and breach of contract action filed by RoadRunner Recycling. Trial is currently scheduled for December 2024.

Pro Bono

  • Braidwood v. Becerra, No. 23-10326 (5th Cir.) – Led amicus briefing team on behalf of national HIV/AIDS advocacy groups—representing thousands of healthcare providers, government and public officials from every state, and policy experts—in support of reversing a decision striking the cost-sharing preclusion in the ACA for certain preventative treatments, including the life-saving HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (“PrEP”). The amici submitted a brief to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals highlighting, among other things, public health data indicating that the lower court decision, if allowed to stand, would result in over 3,000 new (but preventable) HIV infections in the first year alone, with total healthcare costs of $1.66 billion.
  • 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.
Read less

viewpoints

Another Implementer Hold Out Door Closes: The Death of the Anti-Suit Injunction?

February 28, 2024 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Andrew DeVoogd, Courtney Herndon, Laura Petrasky

Read more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released the web-based Patent Public Search tool ("PPS") in late 2021. This useful tool is comparable to the search tool that the PTO’s own examiner’s use to find prior art. That said, PPS has a real learning curve in developing effective search queries. In this article we offer a starting point in developing search queries that will return relevant results.
Read more
In this episode of the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property podcast, Drew DeVoogd and Michael Graif discuss the recent Supreme Court decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, which held that Warhol’s Orange Prince silkscreen portrait did not constitute fair use of a copyrighted photograph of the music legend.
Read more
Mintz represented a former Turkish judge in his six-year odyssey to obtain asylum in the United States, preparing his application, voluminous exhibits, and a persuasive brief and guiding him through the asylum interview process.
Read more

SCOTUS Declines to Answer Calls for Clarification in American Axle v. Neapco

July 13, 2022 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Andrew DeVoogd, Matthew Karambelas, Amanda Metell

Read more
In two recent decisions, both issued on February 4, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “CAFC”) erased two huge patent damages awards because the underlying expert opinion on damages was untethered to the specific facts of each case.
Read more
Dr. Stephen Thaler, the architect of the artificial intelligence system known as DABUS, the first AI system to be named as an inventor on a patent, joins Professor Ryan Abbott of the Artificial Inventor Project, and Mintz IP attorney Drew DeVoogd for this episode of the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property podcast.
Read more
Read less

News & Press

Press Release Thumbnail
Mintz is pleased to announce that 120 firm attorneys have been recognized as leaders by Best Lawyers® in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©.
News Thumbnail
Law360 quoted Member Drew DeVoogd about his work representing Afghan refugees and their families.
Press Release Thumbnail
BOSTON and SAN DIEGO – Chambers & Partners has named two Mintz attorneys as finalists for its 2023 Chambers USA Awards, which celebrates firms and individuals who are furthering the advancement of diversity and inclusion across the United States (U.S.).
Press Release Thumbnail
BOSTON – Mintz is pleased to announce that two of its attorneys have been included in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly 2023 ‘Excellence In Law’ recognition.
Press Release Thumbnail
Mintz has secured a significant and complete defense verdict for client Princeton CarbonWorks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Connecticut-based bicycle wheel maker was accused of infringing two patents by competitor and industry giant SRAM, LLC.
News Thumbnail
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.
News Thumbnail
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.
News Thumbnail
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.
News Thumbnail
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.
News Thumbnail
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 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.
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.
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.”
Read less

Drew helps sophisticated clients solve complex problems at the intersection of intellectual property, business, and international trade. A trusted advisor and steady courtroom advocate, Drew excels at developing and driving successful strategies to protect and leverage IP, or to defend against accusations of infringement or misappropriation.

Recognition & Awards

  • Best Lawyers in America: Intellectual Property – Litigation (2023, 2024)

  • Patexia: Best Performing ITC Attorneys Representing Complainants (2023)

  • 2023 Chambers USA Diversity & Inclusion Shortlist – Pro Bono: Lawyer of the Year

  • 2023 Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly – Excellence in the Law, Pro Bono Award

  • 2022 Boston Patent Law Association Pro Bono Award

  • 2020 Richard Mintz Pro Bono Award

Read less

Drew helps sophisticated clients solve complex problems at the intersection of intellectual property, business, and international trade. A trusted advisor and steady courtroom advocate, Drew excels at developing and driving successful strategies to protect and leverage IP, or to defend against accusations of infringement or misappropriation.

Involvement

  • Board of Directors, Greater Boston Legal Services
Read less