Brad is an experienced patent litigator and trial lawyer who represents clients in federal courts around the country, including US district courts and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and at the International Trade Commission. He counsels clients in a variety of sectors, including high technology related to electronics, automotive technologies, medical technologies and various consumer products. With a background in mechanical engineering and over 15 years of experience, Brad has successfully represented patent owners’ rights against infringers, protected those rights from invalidity challenges and negotiated favorable settlements.
Brad has served as both lead and co-counsel in front of judges and juries at trial in U.S. district courts, the International Trade Commission and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent Office, argued for clients at evidentiary hearings before Article III judges, deposed and defended numerous fact and expert witnesses, and successfully managed large and small litigation teams through all phases of discovery and pretrial. He has litigated intellectual property cases in District Courts throughout the United States, including the Eastern District of Texas, the Southern, Central and Northern Districts of California, the District of Delaware and the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
Brad’s litigation experience also extends to post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, where he has successfully defended patent owners’ rights against inter partes review (IPR) challenges and co-chairs the firm’s Post Grant practice. The Mintz post-grant team has achieved success rates for patent owners well above the industry average.
Brad is also the Editor of Mintz’ IP blog. In his spare time, he works as the bandleader and bassist for the 8-piece jump blues band, The Slicked-Up 9’s, and plays bass in New York rock act, The Incumbents.
Education
- Villanova University (JD)
- Lehigh University (BSME)
Experience
- Served as lead counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs in a 10-day jury trial concerning patent infringement, involving passive electronic components, in the Eastern District of New York. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, finding infringement of both asserted patents (Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp. et al. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 14-06544-KAM (E.D.N.Y. 2014)
- Representing an 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.))
- Serving as lead defense 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)
- Co-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.))
- Allergan, Inc. v. Photomedex, Inc., et al., 8:07-cv-01316 (CDCA) - 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.
- Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp., 07-893 (S.D. Cal.) – defended electrical components manufacturer in patent infringement action concerning multilayer capacitors.
Recognition & Awards
- Included on the New York Super Lawyers: Rising Stars - Intellectual Property Litigation list (2014 - 2018)
Recent Insights
Viewpoints
Patent Owner Tip #14 for Surviving an Instituted IPR: When Not to Amend Claims in an IPR
August 12, 2021 |Blog
Arthrex SCOTUS Ruling: The IPR Show Must Go On, Just with (a Bit) More Oversight
June 24, 2021 |Blog
PTAB Continues Streak of IPR Denials
June 14, 2021 |Blog
News & Press
Mintz Member Brad Scheller was quoted in an article published by Law360 on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s precedential decision in Lectrosonics Inc. v. Zaxcom Inc., which demonstrates that “secondary considerations” evidence of nonobviousness, including industry praise, can prove a successful strategy for saving a patent.
This feature story discusses on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) new final rule changing the claim construction standard for America Invents Act (AIA) reviews. Brad Scheller is among the intellectual property attorneys quoted providing commentary.
Viewpoints
Patent Owner Tip #14 for Surviving an Instituted IPR: When Not to Amend Claims in an IPR
August 12, 2021 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Sean Casey
We look to those circumstances when a patent owner should think twice about amending, including when significant past damages exist, the current claims possess strong infringement reads and claim scope, petitioners are highly-motivated to fight and patent owner is cost sensitive.
Read more
Arthrex SCOTUS Ruling: The IPR Show Must Go On, Just with (a Bit) More Oversight
June 24, 2021 | Blog | By William Meunier, Brad M Scheller, Andrew DeVoogd
On Monday, in a highly-anticipated decision, a fractured Supreme Court issued its opinion in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, striking a portion of the America Invents Act (AIA) as unconstitutional—but providing an effectively toothless remedy.
Read more
PTAB Continues Streak of IPR Denials
June 14, 2021 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Paul Brockland
US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institution denials for inter partes review (“IPR”) and other post-grant review petitions have steadily risen from 13 percent in 2012 to 44 percent in 2020. In 2020, the institution rate has fallen to 56%, down from 63% a year ago.
Read more
Patent Owner Tip #9 for Surviving an Instituted IPR: Issues Warranting Limited Additional Discovery
June 10, 2021 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Monique Winters Macek
In our previous post we started talking about discovery procedures in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings under 37 CFR § 42.51 and, in particular, the scope and timing of seeking limited additional discovery under Rule 42.51(b)(2). We reviewed timing considerations and emphasized the importance of anticipating the need for additional discovery and, to the extent necessary, moving the Board as early as possible following Institution.
Read more
PTAB Admits Mistake, Reverses, and Institutes
June 8, 2021 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, James Thomson
In a rare turn of events the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently granted a rehearing request in Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appl. Co., Ltd., No. IPR2020-00208, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. June 1, 2021), stating that “we abused our discretion in denying institution” based on an improper allocation of the parties’ burdens when a petitioner challenges an alleged priority date.
Read more
Patent Owner Tip #4 For Surviving An Instituted IPR: Take the Time to Use Your Expert as an Expert
April 29, 2021 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Nana Liu
The expert declaration provides a unique opportunity for Patent Owners to bolster their case during the discovery period of an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding. We previously detailed how to effectively use an expert declaration in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (“POPR”). Now we turn to maximizing your expert’s testimony for the Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”).
Read more
The Federal Circuit Provides New Guidance for Patent Licensees Wishing to Challenge the Licensed Patent’s Validity
April 21, 2021 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Peter Cuomo, Monique Winters Macek, Mark Hammond
The Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated handed down a decision on April 7, 2021 that provides guidance on the determination of standing for patent licensees who wish to contest the validity of a patent or patents in a licensed portfolio.
Read more
An Informative PTAB Decision on Fintiv Factors
January 8, 2021 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Justin J. Leisey
The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently designated its decision in Snap, Inc. v. SRK Technology LLC (§ II.A), IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 (Oct. 21, 2020) (“Snap”) as being informative regarding the Fintiv factors analysis.
Read more
Tip #4 for Avoiding IPR Institution: Don’t Argue Facts
November 9, 2020 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Serge Subach
We’ve previously written that the best defense to an IPR challenge is avoiding IPR institution altogether. In addition to the other tips discussed in this series of posts, another strategy for avoiding institution is focusing the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (“POPR”) on areas where the Petitioner failed to adequately support its argument.
Read more
Avoiding IPR Institution: Your Best Defense to an IPR Challenge
October 27, 2020 | Blog | By Peter Cuomo, William Meunier, Brad M Scheller
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was once famously referred to by the former chief judge of the Federal Circuit, the honorable Randall Rader, as a patent death squad.
Read more
News & Press
PTAB Case Highlights Power Of Nonobviousness Arguments
April 24, 2020
Mintz Member Brad Scheller was quoted in an article published by Law360 on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s precedential decision in Lectrosonics Inc. v. Zaxcom Inc., which demonstrates that “secondary considerations” evidence of nonobviousness, including industry praise, can prove a successful strategy for saving a patent.
AIA Claim Construction Change To Spur Revamped Strategies
October 11, 2018
This feature story discusses on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) new final rule changing the claim construction standard for America Invents Act (AIA) reviews. Brad Scheller is among the intellectual property attorneys quoted providing commentary.
The Current State of IPR Estoppel
January 5, 2018
Mintz Members Kathleen Carr and Brad Scheller and Associate Inna Dahlin collaborated on an article for Bloomberg Law Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal about the inter partes review “estoppel” rule, what circumstances may give rise to it, and how the courts can clarify and validate its use.
Fourteen Mintz attorneys have been named New York Super Lawyers for 2017 and thirteen have been named New York Rising Stars. New York Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers with the highest degree of peer recognition and professional achievements.
Mintz Partner Plays More Than One Tune
July 20, 2017
Brad Scheller, a Member of the Mintz New York office, is featured in an American Lawyer profile. The article discusses Brad’s intellectual property practice and his passion for music outside the office.
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.
Cuozzo and Its Likely Impact
July 6, 2016
Mintz Member Brad Scheller, Associates Catherine Xu and Linyu Mitra, and Senior Patent Agent Gurneet Singh, authored this IP Frontline article discussing the U.S. Supreme Court case of Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, and its implications for patent practitioners.
Brad Scheller (Mintz): “The unitary patent will be devalued to an extent because of the UK exit”
June 28, 2016
Mintz Member Brad Scheller engaged in this in-depth Leaders League interview, providing commentary on the impact of the Brexit vote on the European Intellectual Property landscape, particularly as it pertains to the unitary patent and the United Patent Court.
Brad Scheller authored this IPFrontline article on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Opinion “invalidating all examined claims of a mortgage processing patent as unpatentable for failing to claim patent eligible subject matter.”
Thirteen attorneys from Mintz have been named New York Super Lawyers for 2014 and eleven have been named New York Rising Stars. The list will be published in a special advertising supplement in The New York Times Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New York Super Lawyers - Metro Edition.