Brad Scheller is more than just a seasoned intellectual property litigator—he’s 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 United States district courts and the United States 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 closelytightly aligned with company business goals. A member of Mintz’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, and 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, 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).
viewpoints
ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.: A Reminder Of Obviousness Analysis Under KSR
January 6, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Anthony Faillaci
In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which invalidated several claims of ClassCo’s US Patent No. 6,970,695 (“the ’695 patent”) that discussed caller ID technology that would verbally announce the name of an incoming caller before the call is connected.
Read more
NHL’s Vegas Golden Knights’ Trademark Application Refused Due To Likelihood of Confusion with the College of Saint Rose Golden Knights
December 21, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
In June 2016, the National Hockey League (NHL) announced that Las Vegas would be awarded an NHL franchise team, the first major professional sports team in the city and the first new expansion team for the NHL in over fifteen years.
Read more
Supreme Court to Hear Patent Venue Case
December 15, 2016 | Blog | By Matthew Hurley, Brad M Scheller
The plot just thickened in the long-running debate over where patent cases should be litigated.
Read more
Federal Circuit Clarifies What Constitutes Use “In Commerce” Under the Lanham Act
November 29, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
On November 14, 2016, the Federal Circuit clarified confusion regarding what is necessary to satisfy the registration requirement that a mark be used “in commerce.”
Read more
Federal Circuit Corrects the Board’s “Too Exacting” Diligence Standard
November 21, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
On November 15, 2016, a split panel of the Federal Circuit, consisting of Judges Moore and O’Malley, ruled that the antedating standard demanded by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, requiring a “continuous exercise of reasonable diligence,” was too exacting and in conflict with Federal Circuit precedent.
Read more
Failure to Let Patent Owner Address Unpatentability Arguments Relied on by the Board Violates Administrative Procedures
November 15, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
The Federal Circuit has ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cannot deny Patent Owner an opportunity to address portions of a prior art reference first discussed in Petitioner’s Reply, and then rely on those same portions to hold the claims unpatentable.
Read more
DJ Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars Get “Funked” With New Copyright Suit Over “Uptown Funk”
November 10, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Daniel Weinger, Anthony Faillaci
On Friday, October 28, 2016, musicians Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars were hit with a copyright infringement suit based on their wildly popular hit “Uptown Funk.”
Read more
Federal Circuit Revisits Willfulness Post Halo
September 29, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Adam Rizk
On remand from the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016), the Federal Circuit recently issued a revised decision in Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 2013-1668 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The decision provides insight into the court’s interpretation of the Halo standard and enhanced damages.
Read more
The Specter of Alice Looms Large Even in PGRs
August 15, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
On August 3, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a post-grant review decision that bears one striking similarity to its previous post-grant review decisions, namely invalidation of claims under Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, further bolstering the salience of patent ineligibility challenges in post-grant proceedings.
Read more
What Type of Sale Constitutes an On-Sale Bar?
July 13, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Monique Winters Macek
An invention cannot be patented if it was ready for patenting and was subject to a commercial offer for sale more than one year before the application was filed.
Read more
News & Press
Mintz IP Partner Is Equal Parts BigLaw and Punk Rock
October 3, 2024
Law360 recently published a profile on IP litigator Brad Scheller and his active part in five New York-based rock bands.
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.
Events & Speaking
Nov
14
2024
Guarding the Intangible: Trade Secrets as Catalysts For Valuation and Growth
Battery Forum Conference - Volta Foundation
Virtual
Speaker
Speaker
Recognition & Awards
Included on the New York Super Lawyers: Rising Stars - Intellectual Property Litigation list (2014 - 2018)
Recent Insights
Joint Development Agreements and Trade Secrets - Sweat the Small Stuff
April 23, 2025| Blog|
He Got the MrBeast Blueprint… and a Trade Secret Lawsuit
April 22, 2025| Blog|
Law360 recently published a profile on IP litigator Brad Scheller and his active part in five New York-based rock bands.
