
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) – Mintz represented Innovative Foundry Technologies as part of a global enforcement strategy to protect 5 asserted patents relating to semiconductor fabrication and packaging. Respondents for the ITC matter included Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Qualcomm Incorporated, 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 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.
viewpoints
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property — The Vulnerable Icon: Prince, Warhol, and the Supreme Court’s Latest on Copyright Law
June 6, 2023 | Podcast | By Andrew DeVoogd, Michael Graif
Obtaining Justice for a Judicial Advocate
October 27, 2022 | Article
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
Expert Patent Damages Opinions Hit the Spotlight as Federal Circuit Scuttles Two Patent Infringement Verdicts Worth $1.2 Billion in One Day
March 9, 2022 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, James Thomson
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property — Can Our Creations Also Create? The DABUS AI System as a Named Inventor
October 13, 2021 | Podcast | By Andrew DeVoogd
Invalidity of Terminal Patents Not Tied to Disclaimed Patent-in-Suit’s Expiration
October 6, 2021 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Courtney Herndon
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property — Patent Damages Deep Dive with Mintz and BDO – Part II of II
July 29, 2021 | Podcast | By Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property — A Patent Damages Deep Dive with Mintz and BDO — Part I of II
July 22, 2021 | Podcast | By Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property — Arthrex: PTAB Lives to Fight Another Day with (a Bit) More Oversight
June 24, 2021 | Podcast | By Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger
News & Press
Mintz’s Drew DeVoogd Wins Boston Patent Law Association’s Pro Bono Award
December 15, 2022
Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on LGBTQ Rights
June 16, 2020
Remote Work May Change Attorneys’ Habits After Pandemic
March 31, 2020
Joint Policy Statement and Recent Cases Confirm That Injunctive Relief on SEPs is Available at the ITC
March 19, 2020
The PTAB Has Another Appointment With the Federal Circuit + SEPs Have a Little More Bite at the ITC
October 30, 2019
SK Hynix Memory Products Infringe Netlist IP, ITC Judge Finds
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.
Novel Outcome at the ITC: Patent Claims Invalidated under Alice in the 100-Day Pilot Program
January 3, 2017
Patent Co. Says Deal With Honda Ends Infotainment Probe
August 22, 2016
Mintz Elevates Six Attorneys To Members of the Firm
May 02, 2016
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
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