Brad is a seasoned intellectual property litigator and a strategic partner who thrives at the intersection of law, technology, and business. With a reputation for tackling complex trade secret and patent disputes, Brad brings a rare blend of technical insight and courtroom prowess, advocating for clients before judges and juries in US district courts and the US Patent and Trademark Office. His ability to distill intricate technological concepts into compelling stories and legal arguments makes him a sought-after advisor for companies navigating high-stakes intellectual property challenges both inside the courtroom and at the negotiating table.
Brad excels in developing creative and off-the-beaten-path strategies for both early-stage companies and established businesses, prioritizing each client’s unique story, technology, and motive to drive impactful results closely aligned with company business goals. A Member in the firm's Trade Secrets and Sustainable Energy & Infrastructure Practices, Brad has a particular passion for trade secret management and emerging technologies, with a strong focus on high-density electric vehicle batteries.
Outside of legal work, Brad channels his creativity as a bassist in original and cover bands across New York City and surrounding areas.
Experience
- Represented WePower Technologies in trade secret misappropriation litigation alleging theft of bankruptcy assets relating to energy harvesting technology and achieved favorable settlement. WePower Technologies LLC v. GenerEn, LLC, 7:22-cv-03364 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
- Zest Labs, Inc. et al. v. Walmart Inc. et al., Case No. 18-cv-00500 (E.D. Ark. 2025) representing Zest Labs in trade secret misappropriation dispute before Judge Moody in the Eastern District of Arkansas through jury trial.
- Represented Mullen Industries in federal district court and in defense of 12 inter partes review petitions against Apple. Defeated IPRs filed by Apple against four different patents and the case settled thereafter to avoid significant litigation expenditure. Mullen Industries, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00437 (N.D. Cal. 2022).
- Represented Kostopoulos Investment Holdings against patent infringement allegations with respect to shockwave therapy technologies; drove dispute to favorable settlement before initiation of claim construction proceedings. SoftWave Tissue Regeneration Technologies, LLC v. Dr. Har Hari S. Khalsa, DC, d/b/a Transformational Healing Universe, Thomas Kostopoulos, & Kostopoulos Investment Holdings, LLC d/b/a StemWave, Case No. 2:22-cv-07810-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal. 2022).
- Represented Nanofiber Solutions against patent infringement allegations with respect to electrospun nanofiber wound-healing devices; drove case to favorable settlement following dispositive claim construction ruling in favor of Defendants. Acera Surgical, Inc. et al. v. Nanofiber Solutions, LLC et al., 1:20-cv-00980-CFC-JLH (D. Del. 2020).
- Represented Interactive Digital Solutions against patent infringement allegations with respect to patient monitoring systems; drove case to favorable settlement following disclosure of non-infringement positions and invalidity contentions. CareView Communications, Inc. v. Interactive Digital Solutions, LLC, No. 4:2021-cv-07061-HSG (N.D. Cal. 2021).
- Served as lead counsel on behalf of the defendant in direct-competitor, two-patent infringement litigation involving aesthetic laser technology and successfully drove the parties’ disputes to settlement in eight months and prior to the start of expert discovery. Solta Medical, Inc. v. Lumenis, Inc. et al., No. 19-11600-DJC (D. Mass. 2019).
- Served as lead counsel for American Technical Ceramics and AVX Corporation in a 10-day jury patent trial concerning passive electronic components in the Eastern District of New York. The jury returned a verdict of infringement for plaintiffs. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp. et al. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 14-06544-KAM (E.D.N.Y. 2014).
- Represented owner of patents directed to assembly and fastening technologies against automotive manufacturers and suppliers in the District of Delaware. (Wildcat Licensing WI LLC v. General Motors et al., 1:19-cv-00833-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00834-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00839-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00840-MN-JLH ,1:19-cv-00842-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00843-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00844-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00845-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00846-MN-JLH) (D. Del.)).
- Served as lead counsel in class action cases on behalf of Peter Thomas Roth Labs, LLC concerning false advertising allegations in the realm of cosmetics under various California, New York, Florida, and Washington consumer laws. Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC at el. v. Miller et al., 19-698 (N.D. Cal.); Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC et al. v. Clair, 20-1220 (S.D.N.Y.)).
- Represented Intellectual Ventures II LLC in IPR proceedings concerning encapsulated stator motor technology (IPR2017-01537, IPR2017-01558).
- Lead counsel for complainant in Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-1052).
- Represented Patent Owners American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corporation in IPR proceedings concerning technology for multilayer capacitor structures (IPR2015-01330, IPR2015-01331).
- Represented Patent Owner Footbalance System Oy in IPR proceedings concerning shoe insoles (Petition denied in IPR2015-01770; all claims upheld in IPR2015-01769).
- Represented owner of electronic payment system patents in patent infringement litigation. MoneyCat v. PayPal, Inc., 14-2490 (N.D. Cal.).
- Represented and achieved successful settlement for video-game developer and manufacturer in four-patent infringement litigation concerning motion-controlled video gaming (Shinsedai Co. Ltd. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 11-2799 (S.D. Cal.)).
- Represented Jan Marini Skin Research Inc., Peter Thomas Roth, Inc., and Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC in a patent infringement case relating to certain hair growth products. Allergan, Inc. v. Photomedex, Inc. et al., 8:07-cv-01316 (C.D.C.A. 2009).
viewpoints
The Federal Circuit Weighs $2.8 Million Attorneys’ Fee Award for Failure to Identify Trade Secrets
October 13, 2026 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Stephen Chen
Federal Circuit reviews a $2.8M fee award in a DTSA trade secret case, testing when weak trade secret identification becomes bad-faith litigation.
The Trade Secret Test Is Coming: Are You Ready? Recent Decisions Reveal the Cost of Poor Preparation
September 8, 2025 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Brad M Scheller , Michael McNamara, Stephen Chen
Courts are demanding precise, documented proof of trade secrets, and recent appellate decisions show that companies without a proactive asset management program risk losing at both the pleading and summary judgment stages.
Stealing Confidential Information is Not Necessarily Trade Secret Misappropriation
May 8, 2025 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Laura Petrasky
Joint Development Agreements and Trade Secrets - Sweat the Small Stuff
April 23, 2025 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Robert Sweeney
Learn how a joint development agreement (JDA) can impact trade secret protection, illustrated by Pemco Aircraft and Boeing’s case.
He Got the MrBeast Blueprint… and a Trade Secret Lawsuit
April 22, 2025 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Stephen Chen
A former IT contractor turned full-time employee at MrBeast YouTube LLC (“Beast”) — the content machine built by digital juggernaut, Jimmy Donaldson, aka MrBeast is accused of swiping thousands of confidential files, including trade secrets detailing how Donaldson and his team develops its uniquely successful videos.
Trade Secret Thieves, Beware! The DTSA Can Reach You and Your Sales Around the Globe.
July 30, 2024 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Brad M Scheller , Adam Samansky, Laura Petrasky
This month the Seventh Circuit in Motorola Sols., Inc. v. Hytera Commc’ns Corp. Ltd. upheld the Northern District of Illinois in finding that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) has extraterritorial reach. Companies can seek relief when misappropriation occurs abroad and for the sales lost abroad when an act in furtherance of the trade secret misappropriation occurs in the United States.
In Split Vote, FTC Approves Controversial Final Rule Banning Most Post-Employment Non-Competes; Rule Already Subject to Challenge in Court
April 25, 2024 | Blog | By Talia Weseley, Danielle Bereznay, Bruce Sokler, Benjamin Ferrucci, David Barmak, Brad M Scheller , Geri Haight, Michael Arnold
Energy & Sustainability IP Updates — February 2024
February 1, 2024 | Article | By Brad M Scheller
Read about Hyundai Motor Company’s recently filed patent application directed to solid-state battery technology.
Supercapacitor Patent Row Between CAP-XX and Maxwell Technologies Goes to Court this Week
December 13, 2023 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Amy LoBue
After four years of litigation, Australian-based CAP-XX, Ltd. finally commenced its patent infringement trial this Monday against Maxwell Technologies, Inc. before Judge Jennifer Hall and a Delaware jury and is set to end on Friday.
Energy & Sustainability IP Updates — November 2023
November 1, 2023 | Article | By Brad M Scheller
Read about Tesla’s ongoing patent litigation battles with Autonomous Devices and CAP-XX Ltd. and patent infringement cases filed against Tesla in New York and Texas.
News & Press
Trade Secret Rulings Reveal the Cost of Poor Preparation
November 10, 2025|
Mintz IP Partner Is Equal Parts BigLaw and Punk Rock
October 3, 2024|
PTAB Case Highlights Power Of Nonobviousness Arguments
April 24, 2020|
Twenty-Four Mintz Attorneys Named 2019 New York Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
September 12, 2019|
AIA Claim Construction Change To Spur Revamped Strategies
October 11, 2018|
Twenty-Four Mintz Attorneys Named 2018 New York Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
September 19, 2018|
The Current State of IPR Estoppel
January 5, 2018|
Twenty-Seven Mintz Attorneys Named 2017 New York Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
September 20, 2017|
Mintz Partner Plays More Than One Tune
July 20, 2017|
Cuozzo and Its Likely Impact
July 6, 2016|
USPTO “Forecloses” On Mortgage Processing Patent Under Alice
March 8, 2016|
Twenty-Three Mintz Attorneys Named 2015 New York Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
September 16, 2015|
Events & Speaking
Trade Secret Legal Protection
IP Monetization: Trade Secret - Harmonization or Counteraction?
Boston, MA
Mintz x The Engine: Supercharging Your IP Strategy with Trade Secrets
The Engine, 750 Main St. Cambridge, MA 02139
Guarding the Intangible: Trade Secrets as Catalysts For Valuation and Growth
Battery Forum Conference - Volta Foundation
Virtual
Recognition & Awards
IAM Strategy 300: Global Leaders (2025 – 2026)
Patexia: Ranked among the best performing PTAB attorneys representing patent owners (2025)
IAM Strategy 300: The World's Leading IP Strategists (2025)
New York Super Lawyers: Rising Stars – Intellectual Property Litigation list (2014 – 2018)
Recent Insights
