Skip to main content

Kevin C. Amendt

Member

[email protected]

+1.617.348.4863

Share:

Kevin is a patent attorney who advises companies on strategic intellectual property counseling across the full lifecycle of innovation—from early‑stage portfolio development through post‑grant and dispute‑related risk management. His practice focuses on helping clients align patent strategy with business objectives, assess competitive landscapes, and manage IP risk in technically complex and fast‑moving markets.

Kevin counsels clients on all aspects of the patent system, including patentability and prosecution, portfolio management, freedom to operate analyses, and validity and infringement assessments. He is frequently engaged to evaluate design around strategies and IP risk before products reach the public market, and to help clients obtain patent protection that reflects both technical innovations and broader commercial goals.

Kevin has significant experience in intellectual property disputes and post‑grant proceedings before the USPTO and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He represents clients in inter partes reviews, ex parte reexaminations, and reissue proceedings, and is trusted to assess and develop positions in high‑stakes and technically complex matters. In recognition of this work, Kevin was named among the top‑performing PTAB practitioners representing patent owners nationwide in the Patexia 2025 Patent Trial and Appeal Board Intelligence Report.

A facet of Kevin’s practice involves standard‑essential patents (SEPs) and standards‑driven technologies, particularly in the telecommunications and video coding space. In this context, he advises on infringement and validity analyses, portfolio evaluations, and enforcement and defense considerations relating to technologies such as 4G/5G/6G and WiFi (802.11) wireless standards, as well as HEVC/H.265 and VVC/H.266 video coding.

Kevin has represented clients ranging from individual inventors and venture backed startups to academic institutions, hospitals, and multinational companies. His technical experience spans telecommunications, complex software systems, artificial intelligence, clean energy, consumer electronics, signal processing, robotics, biotechnology, and other advanced technology fields.

Kevin graduated first in class and summa cum laude from Suffolk Law’s evening program while working full time at Mintz as a patent agent. Prior to becoming a patent attorney, he worked as a systems engineer at Raytheon for missile defense systems and held engineering and research roles with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and the MIT Media Laboratory. He earned his MS in Electrical and Computer Engineering with a focus on intelligent systems, robotics, and control.

Experience

  • Represented patent owner Collision Communications, Inc. in twelve inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed by Samsung, Lenovo, Intel, and Motorola relating to 4G LTE technologies. Achieved a perfect defense record—each petition was denied institution or terminated—preserving the validity of all challenged patents. In related district court litigation handled by other counsel, a jury found Samsung willfully infringed four patents and awarded damages of up to $445.5 million.
  • Represented Constellation Designs in six PTAB proceedings against LG Electronics involving patents related to the ATSC 3.0 (NextGen TV) broadcast standard, securing favorable outcomes for the patent owner in every proceeding.
  • Represented InterDigital in multiple post-grant proceedings, including IPRs and ex parte reexaminations, defending video encoding and decoding patents against challenges by Unified Patents LLC; matters included patents asserted against major operating companies.
  • Successfully defended video compression patents incorporated into leading standards, including representation of GE Video Compression in IPR2019-00726, where the PTAB denied institution of a challenge to a patent covering binary arithmetic coding techniques.
  • Represented Elm 3DS Innovations as replacement counsel in a coordinated defense of a series of IPRs filed by SK Hynix, Micron, and Samsung challenging three-dimensional memory technology patents. Secured final written decisions upholding the vast majority of challenged claims, with PTAB decisions affirmed on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
  • Advise technology companies on portfolio development, patent prosecution, and pre-market risk, including serving as virtual in-house counsel for private-equity-backed companies, managing global portfolios for international businesses, and conducting freedom-to-operate and portfolio diligence for software, telecommunications, energy, and consumer-product companies.
Read less

viewpoints

Viewpoint Thumbnail

USPTO reshapes PTAB IPR rules, favoring patent owners with new denial doctrines, strategic shifts, and evolving guidance under Director Stewart.

Read more

On May 29, 2024, the Western District of Oklahoma in SIPCO, LLC v. JASCO Prods. Co. dismissed the plaintiff SIPCO’s patent infringement claims against defendant JASCO because of a minor typo made by the USPTO during prosecution.

Read more
Tasked with starting an innovation protection and patent development program at your company but do not know where to begin? This three part series describes the key components to a patent development program for any company, small or large. This second installment in the series describes subject matter for educating the innovator technical team tasked with developing or evaluating potential patentable innovations within a company.
Read more
Tasked with starting an innovation protection and patent development program at your company but do not know where to begin? This three part series describes the key components to a patent development program for any company, small or large.
Read more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in February that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cannot cancel claims for indefiniteness in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The case is Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Prisua Engineering Corp., case number 19-1169, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Read more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in February that it was wrong for a judge to rule that a patent was ineligible under the Alice standard because there were underlying factual disputes that could not be resolved on summary judgement.
Read more
Struggling to keep case law relating to subject matter eligibility organized?  In February 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released an improved Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet, providing patent practitioners with a useful tool for analyzing claims in view of 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter eligibility requirements.
Read more
On August 25, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a precedential opinion in Ex Parte McAward, reaffirming the Patent Office’s use of a lower pre-issuance threshold for indefiniteness distinct from the Supreme Court’s Nautilus standard.
Read more
Someone stole your invention and filed for a patent on it? Derivation proceedings in the Patent Office may be an answer. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amended 35 U.S.C. § 135 to replace interference proceedings with a new process called derivation proceedings.
Read more
Read less

News & Press

Press Release Thumbnail Mintz

Mintz has again been recognized as one of the most active and high-performing law firms in the Patexia 2025 PTAB Intelligence Report. The annual report evaluates PTAB proceedings to identify the top attorneys and law firms based on their activity and performance before the PTAB.

News Thumbnail Mintz

Member Kevin Amendt recently shared his perspective on the shifting landscape in high-tech intellectual property as clients adopt a more strategic approach to licensing. Read the full article here in Managing IP.

News Thumbnail Mintz
Law360 featured a Mintz patent litigation team as “Legal Lions” in its weekly list of the top verdicts for its representation of Elm 3DS Innovations, a patent licensing entity.

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed decisions upholding the validity of nearly a dozen Elm patents on semiconductor technologies that accused infringers challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

The Mintz team representing Elm includes Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud, Members William Meunier, James Wodarski and Michael Newman, Special Counsel Sandra Badin, and Associates Kevin Amendt and Matthew Galica.
Read less

Events & Speaking

Panelist
May
7
2026
Event Reference Image
Speaker
Aug
7
2018

Legal Start-Up Workshop

Boston College’s Soaring Startup Circle

Boston, MA

Speaker
Jul
17
2017

Legal Start-Up Workshop

Boston College’s Soaring Startup Circle

Boston, MA

Speaker
Nov
5
2015

Patents in an Innovation Economy

CreaGen Life Science Incubator

Woburn, MA

Read less

Recognition & Awards

  • Ranked by Patexia among the best performing PTAB attorneys representing patent owners (2025)

  • Daniel J. Fern Award, Suffolk Law (Given annually to the graduate with the highest cumulative GPA)

  • Admiral Cochrane Leadership Award, MIT (Given annually to student-athlete who shows the highest qualities of humility, leadership, and inspiration)

Read less