Skip to main content

Catherine Cheng Xu

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1765

Share:

Catherine has an electrical engineering background and her experience includes patent litigation-related patent analysis.

Catherine was a Summer Associate at Mintz, and also interned in the Shanghai, China, office of another US law firm, where she created infringement analysis charts and conducted case research on US patent litigation involving Chinese LED manufacturers.

While in law school, she participated in the Journal of Science & Technology Law. As an undergraduate, she interned in the Department of Renewable Energy at Technische Universitat in Darmstadt, Germany.

Catherine has experience in patent infringement cases before the US International Trade Commission, involving various technologies, such as computer systems, embedded hardware, microprocessors, and graphics processors, among others.

Education

  • Boston University School of Law (JD)
  • University of Illinois (BSEE, cum laude)

Experience

  • 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.

Recognition & Awards

  • Eta Kappa Nu, Electrical Engineering Honor Society
  • Grainger Award (2012)

Involvement

  • Engineering Council Representative, Bridge to China (2009 – 2012)

Languages

- Mandarin

Recent Insights

News & Press

Events

Viewpoints

Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

No Fishing Allowed: Discovery of Litigation Funding Requires Articulation of Relevance Beyond Speculation

June 18, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Catherine Xu

Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Infringement Contentions: Fair Notice?

February 18, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Catherine Xu

Some respondents at the ITC have taken advantage of using infringement contentions as a procedural tool to deny patent owners from getting their day in court.  In some investigations, respondents have gone so far as to delay their own production of discovery until after the infringement contention deadline, then claim lack of fair notice when the patent owner uses the late discovery in its expert report.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Mintz is recognized as among the top ten firms in ITC Section 337 litigation by Patexia in its inaugural "ITC Intelligence Report". We are pleased to be among the firms included in this publication and thrilled that it has come on the heels of a great year at the ITC for the Mintz team.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail

Efficacy of Preliminary Injunction Against Apple Called into Question

December 12, 2018 | Alert | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Robert Moore, Catherine Xu

Read about the preliminary injunction issued by the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court in China against Apple for its infringement of two Qualcomm patents.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Discovery Concerning Potential Litigation Funding is Not Relevant or Proportional

June 14, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Catherine Xu

A recent order from the Northern District of California provides some succinct guidance on the relevancy of discovery concerning litigation funding. In Space Data Corp. v. Google LLC, 5-16-cv-03260, the court denied Defendants Google and Alphabet’s motion to compel discovery as to potential litigation funding allegedly considered by Plaintiff Space Data.
Read more
In its first en banc decision of 2018, the Federal Circuit held that “judicial review is available for a patent owner to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s determination that the petitioner satisfied the timeliness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) governing the filing of petitions for inter partes review.”
Read more

Federal Circuit Rejects Board’s Understanding of Prior Art

April 28, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Catherine Xu

The Federal Circuit has now reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc.  finding claims 1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 6,567,967 (the “‘967 patent”)  as being “not supported by substantial evidence.”
Read more

Supreme Court Decides Two Key Aspects of IPR in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

June 30, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Gurneet Singh, Catherine Xu

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is final and non-appealable, thereby not being subject to judicial review, and (2) it is appropriate for the Board to construe claims in an issued patent according to their broadest reasonable interpretation, rather than their plain and ordinary meaning as in district court litigation.
Read more
It can be tricky to evaluate written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for negative claim limitations since the support may amount to the absence of a feature from an invention that is described positively with respect to what it includes, as opposed to what it does not.
Read more

News & Press

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.