Skip to main content

James Wodarski

Member

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1855

Share:

Jim is a seasoned trial lawyer who concentrates his practice on intellectual property litigation. He skillfully represents clients in federal district and appellate courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as the International Trade Commission. He handles disputes involving smartphones, core processor circuits, digital imaging software, telecommunications devices, and LED lighting systems, and many other technologies. And he has more than two decades of experience with complex civil litigation, including insurance, securities, and First Amendment matters. He previously served as an assistant district attorney in Massachusetts.

James focuses his practice on patent disputes in the International Trade Commission (ITC), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Federal District Courts. He has also appeared before the First and Second Circuit courts as part of his appellate work at the state and federal levels. A patent litigator with extensive experience, James has handled disputes involving a variety of technologies, including smartphones, core processor circuits, digital imaging software, telecommunications devices, and LED lighting systems.

A trial lawyer with 20 years of complex civil litigation experience, James has also represented clients in complex business litigation, white collar crime, insurance coverage, federal securities actions, trademark ownership of mass media and literary titles, complex insurance coverage, and the First Amendment.

James returned to Mintz after working as a partner with Pepper Hamilton LLP. He has also served as an assistant district attorney in Hampden County, Massachusetts.

Education

  • Vanderbilt University (JD)
  • George Washington University (BA)

Experience

Federal Circuit Appeals

  • Preservation Wellness Technologies LLC v. NextGen Healthcare Information Systems LLC, et al, 2016-2193, 2016-2194, 2016-2195 (Fed. Cir.) - Successfully argued at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to affirm an Eastern District of Texas ruling from May 2016 that held unpatentable a medical records patent asserted by Preservation Wellness against long-time client NextGen Healthcare. Mintz Levin also argued on behalf of co-appellees Allscripts Healthcare Solutions Inc. and Epic Systems Corp. NextGen Healthcare provides electronic health record, financial, and health information exchange solutions for myriad healthcare organizations and the infringement allegations threatened “Patient Portal,” a key component of the company’s service.
  • Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O, 2015-1212, (Fed. Cir.) - Represented Straight Path IP in successfully appealing to the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) the adverse result of an inter partes review handled by another firm. The IPR decision cancelled all challenged claims of Straight Path’s US Patent No. 6,108,704. In the Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU SRO appeal, the CAFC for the first time completely reversed an adverse IPR decision, remanding the matter for further proceedings under the correct construction advocated by Mintz Levin and Straight Path.

Trade Secrets Litigation

  • New England Biolabs et al v. Enzymatics, 1:12-cv-12125 (D. Mass) – Defended Enzymatics against claims of trade secrets theft and patent infringement brought by three plaintiffs in a case involving nucleic acid ligands. Resulted in favorable settlement for our client.

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-1089) Represent Complainant Netlist, Inc., a California memory module company, in the ITC asserting six patents against the Korean-based memory company, SK hynix. The technology claimed by the asserted patents is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards, which are implemented by the accused imported products. The respondents are asserting novel RAND defenses in the ITC, and in a co-pending case involving the same patents in the District Court for the Central District of California. The ITC evidentiary hearing is scheduled for March 2019.
  • 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, subject to a 60-day presidential review period.
  • Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) - Represented owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents 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.
  • Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) - Represented owner of portfolio of communications and computing patents from former enterprise communications business unit of large multinational innovation company. An ITC investigation was instituted in August 2014 as to respondent entities Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and HTC Corporation. Google participated as an intervenor. The investigation resolved prior to evidentiary hearing in June of 2015.
  • Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884) - Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC. Investigation was instituted in June 2013 and among the respondent entities were Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, and ZTE. Most respondents settled. After an evidentiary hearing held over several days in May 2014, on August 29, 2014 Mintz successfully obtained a recommendation for a Limited Exclusion Order against the remaining respondent, which chose to settle while Commission review of the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination was pending.
  • Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) - Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC, and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Cases were filed between late 2011 and early 2012, and all were resolved by the end of January 2013. The technology at issue relates to LCD panels, central processor units, graphics processing units, and other microprocessor technology. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space – Apple, LG, Research in Motion, Samsung, and Sony.
  • Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-804) – Represented the complainant (plaintiff) that makes LED lighting systems for use in film and TV production, at the International Trade Commission. The ITC handed down its Final Initial Determination of infringement on September 7, 2012. On January 17, 2013, the ITC issued a General Exclusion Order (GEO) against respondents based in both China and the United States. The result in this case is particularly notable because it is rare for the ITC to issue a GEO due to the rigorous criteria and careful balancing of interests that apply to requests for GEOs.
  • Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726) - Represented complainant in this three-patent ITC case. Filed in June 2010 against converged device manufacturers and focused on digital camera technology found in cell phones, laptop computers, and personal digital assistants, the matter was fully settled in April 2011. The result was successful licensing programs with three out of four respondents, among which are recognized leaders in the electronics device manufacturing space – HTC, LG, Research in Motion, and more.

Federal District Court

  • The Coca-Cola Company v. Johanna Foods, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 1:10-cv-3081) - Represented a major regional chilled-beverage supplier in defending design patent and trade dress infringement allegations by an international beverage supplier regarding clear plastic PET product packaging in the Northern District of Georgia. Case settled favorably.
  • MEI, Inc. v. JCM American Corp., et al (DNJ 1:09-cv-351) – Represented a bill validator supplier adverse to its principal competitor in the Federal District of New Jersey and in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding patents directed to antifraud technology.

Recognition & Awards

  • Included on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Intellectual Property Litigation list (2014 – 2018)
  • Recognized by The Legal 500 United States for Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation - International Trade Commission (2017-2018)

Recent Insights

News & Press

Events

Viewpoints

Viewpoint General

Commission Reverses Apple Infringement Finding, Thereby Mooting the Public Interest Inquiry...For Now

March 27, 2019 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Sandra Badin, Rithika Kulathila

Yesterday afternoon, the International Trade Commission issued its Final Determination in Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Process Components Thereof, 337-TA-1065. The 1065 Investigation is one of several actions Qualcomm has brought against Apple both here and abroad.
Viewpoint General

FRAND Licensing of Global Portfolios – Who Gets to Set Worldwide Rates?

March 26, 2019 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Sandra Badin

A key issue in the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs) is whether national courts have jurisdiction to determine what constitutes a global fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) license rate.  The Court of Appeal in England recently held that its patent courts have such jurisdiction.  In Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL, the Court of Appeal affirmed the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice to try a claim for the infringement of UK-designated European SEPs against Chinese as well as English defendants and to issue an injunction for the unauthorized use of the SEPs at issue.  In the process, it also affirmed the High Court’s jurisdiction to determine a worldwide FRAND rate. 
Viewpoint General
PanOptis Patent Management, LLC (“PanOptis”) was recently awarded enhanced damages and ongoing royalties as a result of Huawei Technology Co. Ltd. (“Huawei”) infringing five of its patents, four of which were alleged to be essential to the 4G LTE technology standard.  Despite the successful legal outcome, the size of PanOptis’ cumulative damages award for its standard-essential patents was less than some observers anticipated.  This result emphasizes the importance of taking a global enforcement approach—leveraging international fora—to recoup meaningful compensation for standard-essential patents.
Viewpoint General

Designing Around a Monopoly: the Public Interest Dispute between Qualcomm and Apple Takes a New Turn

March 12, 2019 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Sandra Badin, Matthew Galica

As we mentioned in December, the International Trade Commission issued a notice to review the Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination issued by Administrative Law Judge Pender in Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Process Components Thereof, 337-TA-1065 (“Certain Mobile Electronic Devices”), in which, despite finding that a valid patent was infringed and all jurisdictional requirements met, ALJ Pender had recommended that no exclusion order be issued against Apple because such an order would be contrary to the public interest.
Viewpoint General

The Tall Tale of the Domestic Industry

March 4, 2019 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Marguerite McConihe, Courtney Herndon

There is a common misconception the domestic industry economic prong requirement is insurmountable and an unknowable factor in a patent infringement action at the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”), especially for foreign-based companies or non-practicing entities (“NPEs”). This could not be further from the truth. Those in the trenches at the ITC have seen recent trends that show with effective and strategic pre-suit diligence, creative thinking, and experienced counsel, the domestic industry requirement is no bar to a successful investigation.
Viewpoint General

ITC to Review Controversial Apple-Qualcomm Decision

December 13, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Aarti Shah, Marguerite McConihe

As anticipated https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2231/2018-10-alj-pender-apple-infringes-no-exclusion-order-qualcomm, on December 12, 2018, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued a notice to review the Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination (“FID”) issued by Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Pender in In the Matter of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Process Components Thereof, 337-TA-1065 (“Certain Mobile Electronic Devices”), where ALJ Pender, despite finding that a valid patent was infringed and all jurisdictional requirements met, recommended that no Limited Exclusion Order be issued against Apple because it would be contrary to the public interest.
Viewpoint General

Developing Methodologies for Resolving FRAND Disputes

December 6, 2018 | Video | By James Wodarski

Jim Wodarski discusses the global reach of SEP portfolios and the developing worldwide consensus among sophisticated intellectual property courts on methodologies for resolving FRAND disputes, specifically citing the decision in TCL v. Ericsson by a United States District Court.
Viewpoint General

ITC Provides Clarity on the Meaning of a Section 337(a)(2) “Article”

October 31, 2018 | Alert | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Aarti Shah, Marguerite McConihe, Serge Subach

This article examines a recent International Trade Commission decision that opens up the ITC to complainants in an earlier phase of product development.
Viewpoint General

ALJ Pender: Apple Infringes, but No Exclusion Order for Qualcomm

October 4, 2018 | Alert | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Aarti Shah, Robert Moore, Marguerite McConihe

Read about an International Trade Commission in which a judge ruled that Apple infringed a valid Qualcomm patent, but recommended against an exclusion order for Qualcomm.

International Trade Commission Clarifies Domestic Industry Requirements in Favor of Patent

August 6, 2018 | Alert | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Aarti Shah, Andrew DeVoogd, Matthew Galica, Tiffany Knapp

A recent International Trade Commission decision, Vacuum Cleaning Devices, improves a patent owner’s ability to demonstrate that it possesses a statutorily required “domestic industry” and can therefore obtain relief from the Commission when others infringe its intellectual property. This alert reviews the Vacuum Cleaning Devices ruling, which serves to better align the statutory purpose of the ITC’s domestic industry requirement with contemporary business practices.

News & Press

This in-depth article looks at the hotly-contested and closely-watched patent battle between Qualcomm and Apple. The piece further discusses what potential legal decisions in 2019 could mean for the tech industry moving forward. Mintz Member Jim Wodarski is among the third-party sources quoted providing commentary throughout the piece.
This column notes that with the legal landscape surrounding SEPs shifting in many countries, it has never been more important to take a global view of patent assertion – but any cross-border litigation strategy needs careful consideration. A team of Mintz intellectual property attorneys including Members Mike Renaud and Jim Wodarski and Associate Rob Moore authored this column.
This feature article includes commentary from leading intellectual property industry sources to discuss how the standard-essential patents (SEPs) landscape has changed throughout recent years. Members Mike Renaud and Jim Wodarski are quoted among the IP insiders providing insight.
Mintz Members and intellectual property attorneys Mike Renaud, Aarti Shah and Jim Wodarski collaborated on an article published by Financier Worldwide Magazine discussing standard-essential patents.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found decisively in favor of Mint and client Straight Path IP Group, Inc. in a long-fought battle over three of the licensing firm’s patents. The court upheld a prior 2016 decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Jim Wodarski, a Mintz Member, was quoted in a Law360 articleon the Federal Circuit’s affirmation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decisions upholding three Straight Path IP Group patents – handing the company a win against “attackers,” including Samsung and Cisco. 
This feature story notes wireless communications company ParkerVision’s request to lift a pause in its lawsuit with Apple, LG, and Qualcomm over several smartphone patents. James Wodarski, Michael McNamara, Kristina Cary, and Daniel Weinger are representing ParkerVision in the case.
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 IP attorneys Michael Renaud, Michael Newman, James Wodarski, and Sandra Badin are among industry sources in this article assessing a Texas ruling that "asserted claims of patent covering medical technology are invalid as abstract and not inventive" under Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International. 
Mintz announced a victory before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court affirmed an Eastern District of Texas ruling from May 2016 that held unpatentable a medical records patent asserted by Preservation Wellness against NextGen Healthcare.
In this column, Mintz attorneys James Wodarski, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, and Matthew Karambelas analyze the decision made by the ITC about patent claims that have been negated by Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International in the 100-Day Pilot Program.
Fifty-three Mintz attorneys have been named Massachusetts Super Lawyers for 2016 and thirty-one have been named Massachusetts Rising Stars. The findings will be published in the November 2016 issue of Boston Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New England Super Lawyers. 
Mintz Boston Members Michael Renaud and James Wodarski, Washington, D.C. Member Aarti Shah, and Boston Associate Adam Rizk authored this Law360 article on the newly-issued ITC statement discounting the idea that an SEP patent owner cannot bring infringement cases before the commission.
A team of intellectual property attorneys – Members James Wodarski and Aarti Shah – authored this Financier Worldwide article discussing the rapid increase seen in general exclusion orders from the U.S. International Trade Commission over the past few years.
Mintz Members James Wodarski and Aarti Shah authored this Law360 article highlighting the option that brand, trademark, and design patent owners have when fighting counterfeits and knockoffs of obtaining general exclusion orders from the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Mintz Members Michael Renaud and James Wodarski and Sandra Badin, Special Counsel and Appellate attorney, authored an Intellectual Asset Magazine column on how U.S. owners of standard-essential patents must be creative in their strategizing to protect the value of their rights.
This Law360 feature article notes Honda’s removal from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s investigation into several foreign automakers’ “importation of vehicles with infotainment systems that allegedly infringed several patents.”
This article notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld claims in a Straight Path IP Group patent matter. The coverage notes that the decision follows a rare reversal by the Federal Circuit that found the PTAB used an incorrect claim construction previously.
This article notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has upheld the validity of two Straight Path patents in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.’s review.
This article notes the opinions of stakeholders commenting on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to the handling and review of post-grant proceedings under the America Invests Act.

Events

Moderator
Nov
7
2018

5th Annual IP Dealmakers Forum

The IP Investment Institute, LLC

New York, NY

Moderator
Sep
20
2017

Patent Licensing 2017

Intellectual Asset Management (IAM)

San Francisco, CA

Speaker
Mar
22
2016

NPE 2016: The Business of Responsible Licensing

Intellectual Asset Management (IAM)

New York City

Panelist
Nov
16
2015

PLI's Patent Litigation 2015

Practising Law Institute

New York City