Skip to main content

Meena Seralathan


[email protected]



Meena is an intellectual property attorney whose practice is focused on patent litigation in Federal District Court, before the US International Trade Commission, and in arbitration, in matters involving patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation.

Meena provides in-depth legal and technical analysis and trial experience in cases involving high tech technologies. Meena has experience in all phases of litigation, including pre-suit diligence, fact and expert discovery, Markman hearings, and trials, and frequently applies her technical expertise in cases requiring source code analysis. Meena also has experience evaluating patents for standard-essential patent pools and evaluating essentiality of patents relating to HEVC, audio codec, and 4G/LTE technology.

Meena brings to her role prior experience drafting and prosecuting US and international patents and responding to patent office actions, including overcoming Alice patent-eligibility rejections in software patent applications. Meena has experience in a broad range of technology areas, including adaptive bitrate streaming, semiconductors, AI and machine learning, malware detection, cybersecurity, networking hardware and software, wireless networks, data encryption, and computer programming. Meena has also, pro bono, assisted a client seeking asylum in the United States and in drafting a Board of Immigration Appeal Brief.

Prior to joining Mintz, Meena served as an assistant district attorney with the Kings County District Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn, New York, where she worked on misdemeanor hearings and jury and bench trials, as well as felony cases, including grand jury presentations. Earlier, she was a patent agent in the New York office of a California-based global law firm and a technical advisor and patent agent at an international law firm based in New York.

In law school, Meena served as executive articles editor of the Brooklyn Journal of International Law as well as an intern with the Children’s Law Center in Brooklyn. While earning her bachelor’s degree, Meena was twice a summer science research fellow at Bryn Mawr College, where she studied recurrent artificial neural networks and developmental robotics, and drafted a code library for the use of a humanoid robot in a computer science course.

Not admitted to practice in Massachusetts.  Admitted to practice only in the State of New York.


International Trade Commission

  • Certain Integrated Circuits, Mobile Devices Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1335) - Represented Daedalus Prime against Samsung Electronics and Qualcomm Corporation in an ITC investigation involving four patents related to power management techniques in computer processors. The case against Samsung was dismissed following a confidential license and settlement agreement. Evidentiary hearing involving the remaining parties was held in August 2023 and ultimately settled before a final decision on the merits.
  • Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same (337-TA-1222) – Represented DivX, a video codec company headquartered in San Diego, in enforcing patents before the ITC in the District of Delaware. The asserted patents involve innovations relating to digital rights management and streaming media. LG and Samsung settled after the Markman order was issued, leaving TCL as the sole remaining respondent. Shortly after the seven day evidentiary hearing held in July 2021, one of the two principal suppliers of the accused streaming technology to TCL, namely Roku, stepped in and took a license to DivX’s portfolio, thus partially resolving DivX’s claims against TCL. Prior to the court issuing a decision on the merits, DivX and TCL entered into a bilateral settlement agreement resolving DivX’s remaining claims against TCl and bringing an end to all pending litigation.

Federal District Court

  • CareView Communications, Inc. v. Interactive Digital Solutions, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-07061-HSG (N.D.Cal. 2021). - 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. 
  • Innovative Foundry Technologies LLC v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, et al., 6:19-cv-00719 (W.D. Tex) - Represented Plaintiff in enforcing 4 patents related to semiconductor manufacturing technology. The case proceeded through Markman hearing where claims were construed favorably in all four patents and a “not invalid” determination issue in response to an attempt to invalidate one patent entirely. All claims between IFT and SMIC have been confidentially settled.
  • Galaxe.Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. RxSense LLC (Index No. 654114/2019) - Secured summary judgment in New York State Supreme Court Commercial Division on behalf of RxSense, a pharmaceutical benefits manager software developer, in a complex contract and licensing dispute with a vendor.


  • CellInfo, LLC v. American Tower Corporation, et al., (D. Mass., 18-cv-11250) & (AAA Case 01-21-0002-2206): After a weeklong arbitration hearing before the American Arbitration Association, achieved victory in favor of client American Tower “on every cause asserted against it” by the claimant, CellInfo LLC, after nearly five years of litigation that also included the District of Massachusetts and the First Circuit Court of Appeals. CellInfo alleged, among other things, trade secret misappropriation of software, which the Arbitrator ultimately rejected and ordered CellInfo to pay nearly $6 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to American Tower, the prevailing party under the operative contract.
Read less


We previously discussed which portions of an artificial intelligence/machine-learning (“AI/ML”) platform could be patented or protected under trade secret, such as related to biotech and synthetic biology.  Equally important to the discussion of how to protect components of an AI/ML platform, however, is the extent to which copyright protection may be useful or beneficial to the developer of the platform.  In this post, we explain what can be protected by copyright in an AI/ML platform.  We also explore when it is appropriate to protect portions of AI/ML platforms using a copyright, how to properly enforce copyrights, as well as when to consider using copyright protection over patent or trade secret protection.

Read more

A recent decision from Judge Stark, now presiding at the Federal Circuit, endorses the use, by a patent owner’s damages expert, of sales projections and a “litigation risk multiplier” in determining reasonably royalty damages.  In the decision, Judge Stark confirmed that a damages expert may rely on such evidence notwithstanding defendants’ Daubert challenges to the contrary.

Read more
We previously discussed which portions of an artificial intelligence/machine-learning (“AI/ML”) platform can be patented.  Under what circumstances, however, is it best to keep at least a portion of the platform a trade secret? And what are some best practices for protecting trade secrets? In this post, we explore important considerations and essential business practices to keep in mind when working to protect the value of trade secrets specific to AI/ML platforms, as well as the pros and cons of trade secret versus patent protection.
Read more
Mintz attorneys Adam Korn, Clare Prober, Jason Far-hadian, Meena Seralathan, Arameh O’Boyle, and Nada Shamonki provided pro bono legal services to help immigrants affected by the “return to Mexico” policy introduced by the Trump administration.
Read more
Earlier this month, in Novartis Pharms. Corp., Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., et al., No. 2021-1070, the Federal Circuit issued a helpful decision concerning the not-often-discussed written description requirement. The panel specifically addressed whether sufficient written description can exist for claim limitations that are not explicitly or directly disclosed in the specification (including negative claim limitations). This new ruling provides patent owners with a useful guide for successfully navigating similar written description challenges in patent infringement cases. For example, Patent Owners seeking to combat written description requirement challenges should proffer expert witnesses who can clearly articulate how they understand the patent description in relation to the claims and what portions of that description support the same.
Read more
Recently, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a notice informing the public that it will be implementing a pilot program (called the Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response Pilot Program, or the “DSMER Pilot Program”) to determine the value of allowing applicants to defer responding to 35 USC § 101 rejections (commonly known as “101 rejections” or “Alice rejections”). The Program is only available for certain applications, and certain procedures are required for participation; however, the Program has the potential to encourage more efficient patent prosecution. Below we answer some questions patent applicants are likely to have about the Program.
Read more

Opening the Door to the New Beginning

January 10, 2022 | Article

In a multistage pro bono engagement, Mintz represented a young man who fled gang violence in Ecuador in detention hearings after he entered the United States, then helped him obtain state court findings supporting a petition to USCIS for permission to remain in the country in the custody of an aunt.
Read more
The United States FRAND jurisprudence had a recent watershed moment in a decision that is sure to reverberate through the standard essential patent (SEP) world, and specifically SEP litigation in the United States. Earlier this week, a Fifth Circuit panel affirmed a jury verdict that found licensing offers made by Ericsson to HTC for Ericsson’s 4G SEPs complied with Ericsson’s FRAND obligations, the first jury verdict of its kind in the United States.
Read more
On June 11, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated as informative a July 26, 2019 institution decision granting post-grant review of a design patent for lacking ornamentality. In this ruling, the PTAB provides insight into how it analyzes the unpatentability of a design patent due to lack of ornamentality in post-grant proceedings at the institution stage.
Read more
The United States Supreme Court unanimously held this week that Lucky Brand was not precluded from mounting a new defense in its litigation with Marcel Fashions Group — despite having chosen not to bring up the same defense in a prior litigation.  This ruling clarifies the circumstances under which a defense can be precluded from a lawsuit.
Read more
Read less

Events & Speaking

Read less

Recognition & Awards

  • Phi Delta Phi Legal Honor Society

Read less


  • Member, American Bar Association
  • Member, New York City Bar Association
  • Member, South Asian Bar Association of New York
  • Member, Metropolitan Black Bar Association
  • Member, Boston Bar Association
  • Member, Boston Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Participant, 2023 ITC TLA Mock Hearing Program
  • Mentor, 2023-2024 LCLD Success in Law School Mentoring Program
Read less