Skip to main content

Brad M. Scheller

Member

[email protected]

+1.212.692.6761

Share:

Brad is a partner in the New York office of Mintz specializing in intellectual property litigation and representing clients before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and in United States federal district and appellate courts. He serves as lead counsel before judges and juries in United States district courts, the International Trade Commission and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In addition to his litigation practice, Brad serves as a strategic counselor to start-up ventures and established businesses in the mechanical and electrical arts, with a deep interest and focus in high-density EV battery technologies and trade secret registration, management and protection.

Brad is a Member of the Firm’s Energy & Sustainability Practice with a focus on representing EV battery companies on all aspects of intellectual property, licensing and technology growth, management and protection. 

Brad is also co-editor of Mintz’ intellectual property writing program and, in his spare time, plays upright and electric bass in several original and cover bands in New York City and surrounding areas.

Experience

  • 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, and Kostopoulos Investment Holdings, LLC d/b/a StemWave, Case No. 2:22-cv-07810-MCS-RAO (C.D.Cal. 2022).
  • 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).
  • 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, 2-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 (CDCA 2009).
Read less

viewpoints

Read about Hyundai Motor Company’s recently filed patent application directed to solid-state battery technology.

Read more

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.

Read more

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.

Read more

Read about patent litigation involving Tesla and electric vehicle technology, the DOE’s new critical mineral assessment, EV and powertrain manufacturer Proterra’s decision to file for bankruptcy, and battery maker Freyr Battery.

Read more

Read about Darling Ingredients and Valero Energy’s investment decision on a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) project, Toyota being awarded more patents than any other automaker by the USPTO in 2022, and Tigo Energy’s patent litigation to protect its innovations.

Read more

The European Patent Office (EPO) and International Energy Agency (IEA) have now released “Hydrogen Patents for a Clean Energy Future” – a comprehensive report on innovation in clean-energy hydrogen technologies over the past two decades according to global patent filings. Patents remain strong indicators of innovation activity and the state and direction of science. The report provides a unique look at where green hydrogen investment has been focused and where it are heading based on international patent families (“IPFs”). According to the report, IPFs are reliable proxies for inventive activity as each represents an invention having value sufficient for seeking protection across multiple patent offices.

Read more

Read about Heliogen, Inc.’s $4.1 million award from the US DOE for solar-thermal technology for industrial decarbonization, patent litigation involving SolarEdge Technologies and Ampt, LLC, and a PTAB decision holding a DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH innovation related to oil and gas drilling unpatentable.

Read more

Read about GE’s request for a new trial with Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, which argued the jury made an "irreconcilably inconsistent" finding regarding GE's technology that infringes a Siemens patent for offshore wind turbines.

Read more
Read less

News & Press

News Thumbnail
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.
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.  
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.
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.
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.
Read less

Events & Speaking

Speaker
May
7
2024
Employment Viewpoint Thumbnail
Speaker
Oct
6
2022

Mintz’s First Annual Energy Transition Summit

40th Floor Conference Center, Mintz

Event Reference Image
Read less

Recognition & Awards

  • Included on the New York Super Lawyers: Rising Stars - Intellectual Property Litigation list (2014 - 2018)

Read less