Skip to main content

Kongsik Kim

Patent & Trade Secrets Litigation

  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. InfoBridge Pte. Ltd., Appeal No. 2018-2007, -2012 (Fed. Cir.) - Representing InfoBridge to keep PTAB’s final written decisions of IPR2017-00099 and -00100 involving a patent directed to a method of constructing merge list (HEVC standard essential patent). 
  • Green Cross Corporation v. Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-2071 (Fed. Cir.) - Represented Green Cross Corporation to vacate PTAB’s final written decision of IPR2016-00258 involving a patent directed to a purified recombinant iduronate-2-sulfatase.
  • Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, Chosun University v. EMD Millipore Corporation(D. Mass.) - Represented Chosun University to assert patent infringement against EMD, which involved a patent directed to a thiazolidinedione derivative and use thereof.
  • Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America (D. Del) - Represented Hyundai Motor to defend from Adaptive Headlamp’s assertion of patent infringement, which involved a patent directed to an automatic directional control system for vehicle headlights.
  • Green Cross Corporation v. Nektar Therapeutics (D. Del.) - Represented Green Cross to assert trade secrets misappropriation against Nektar, which involved polymer-factor VIII moiety conjugates.
  • NanoEnTek, Inc. and Digital-Bio Technology Co., Ltd. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. (E.D. Va.) - Represented NanoEnTek and Digital-Bio to assert patent infringement against Bio-Rad, which involved a patent directed to a method for bonding a plastic micro chip.
  • DR Systems, Inc. v. Infinitt North America (S. D. Cal.) -  Represented Infinitt North to defend from DR Systems’ assertion of patent infringement, which involved a patent directed to an automated system and a method for organizing, presenting, and manipulating medical images.
  • Boram Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Life Technologies Corporation (D. Del.). - Represented Boram to assert patent infringement against Life Technologies, which involved a patent directed to a high throughput system for producing recombinant viruses using site-specific recombination.

Inter Partes Review and Other Post-Grant Proceedings

  • Genome & Company v. The University of Chicago (PGR2019-00002) - Representing Genome & Company to invalidate a University of Chicago’s patent directed to a method of treating cancer with an immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with a bacterial formulation comprising Bifidobacterium.
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. M & K Holdings Inc. (IPR2018-00696, -00697, 00698) -  Representing M & K Holdings to defend an M & K’s patent directed to an image encoding apparatus and a method of decoding moving picture (HEVC standard essential patent).
  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. InfoBridge Pte. Ltd. (IPR2017-00099, -00100) - Represented InfoBridge to defend an InfoBridge’s patent directed to a method of constructing merge list (HEVC standard essential patent).
  • SL Corporation v. Adaptive Headamp Technologies, Inc. (IPR2016-00193) - Represented SL Corporation to invalidate an Adaptive Headlamp’s patent directed to an automatic directional control system for vehicle headlights.
  • Green Cross Corporation v. Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc. (IPR2016-00258) - Represented Green Cross to invalidate a Shire Human’s patent directed to a purified recombinant iduronate-2-sulfatase.
  • Intromedic Co., Ltd. v. Given Imaging Ltd. (IPR2015-00579) -Represented Intromedic to invalidate a Given Imaging’s patent directed to a device for in-vivo Imaging.
  • Ace Bed Co., Ltd. v. Sealy Technology LLC (IPR2014-01119) - Represented ACE Bed to invalidate a Sealey’s patent directed to a bed spring structure having certain innerspring coils and innersprings with non-helical segments.

Patent Prosecution & Strategic Counseling

  • Representing pharmaceutical and biotech companies in building patent portfolio and negotiating with investors and business partners
  • Representing a global vehicle manufacturer and a global vehicle parts manufacturer in building patent portfolio.
  • Representing a global secondary lithium battery manufacturing company in building patentportfolio.
  • Representing a global display panel manufacturing company in building offensive patent portfolio.
  • Representing IP asset management companies in building offensive patent portfolio.
Case Study
Mintz annually handles hundreds of patents for Hyundai/Kia, which uses Mintz as one of its key US patent counsel. Patent analyst and investment organization Ocean Tomo ranked Mintz's practice among the top 20 US firms for patent quality, based in part on Mintz's work for Hyundai/Kia.