Skip to main content

Meena Seralathan

Associate

[email protected]

+1.212.692.6205

Share:

Meena is an intellectual property attorney whose practice is focused on patent litigation in Federal District Court and before the US International Trade Commission.

Meena provides in-depth legal and technical analysis in cases involving high tech technologies, through drafting pleadings and briefs, preparing witnesses and attorney teams for depositions and trial, developing and drafting expert witness statements, motions and responses, and legal memoranda. Meena brings to her role prior experience drafting and prosecuting US and international patents and responding to patent office actions. Meena has experience in a broad range of technology areas, including adaptive bitrate streaming, semiconductors, 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 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 and the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. While earning her bachelor’s degree, Meena studied the efficacy of non-traditional cues and movement systems in  in iPhone video game applications as a student researcher at the University of North Carolina through the Computing Research Association’s Distributed Research Experiences for Undergraduates program. She was also twice a summer science research fellow at Bryn Mawr College, where she studied recurrent artificial neural networks and drafted a code library for the use of a humanoid robot in a computer science course.

Education

  • Brooklyn Law School (JD, cum laude)
  • Haverford College (BS, Computer Science)

Experience

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Wildcat Licensing WI LLC v. General Motors et al., 1:19-cv-00833-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00834-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00839-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00840-MN-JLH ,1:19-cv-00842-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00843-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00844-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00845-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00846-MN-JLH) (D. Del.)- Representing an owner of patents directed to assembly and fastening technologies against automotive manufacturers and suppliers in the District of Delaware. Also representing the patent owner in simultaneous IPR proceedings before the PTAB.

Recognition & Awards

  • CALI Excellence for the Future Award: Patent Prosecution (2016)
  • CALI Excellence for the Future Award: Fundamentals of Legal Drafting (2015)
  • Phi Delta Phi Legal Honor Society

Involvement

  • Member, American Bar Association
  • Member, New York City Bar Association
  • Member, South Asian Bar Association of New York
  • Member, Metropolitan Black Bar Association

Viewpoints

Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Benefits of Using Copyrights to Protect Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Inventions

July 11, 2022 | Blog | By Monique Winters Macek, Meena Seralathan, Lily Zhang

Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
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
Pro Bono Viewpoint
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
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
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
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

USPTO’s New Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response Pilot Program

January 21, 2022 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Meena Seralathan

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
Pro Bono Viewpoint

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
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

US Open for FRAND Business: The Fifth Circuit Vindicates Ericsson, Finding that Ericsson’s Offers were FRAND

September 3, 2021 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Daniel Weinger, Meena Seralathan

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
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
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
Trademark Copyright Viewpoints Thumbnail
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