
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.
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.
viewpoints
Benefits of Using Copyrights to Protect Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Inventions
July 11, 2022 | Blog | By Monique Winters Macek, Meena Seralathan
Sales Projections and a “Litigation Risk Multiplier” Are Fair Game When Assessing Reasonable Royalty Damages
April 29, 2022 | Blog | By Peter Snell, Meena Seralathan
Benefits of and Best Practices for Protecting Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Inventions as Trade Secrets
February 10, 2022 | Blog | By Marguerite McConihe, Meena Seralathan
Challenging the Legality of a Cruel Immigration Policy
January 31, 2022 | Alert
Written Description Requirement Challenges: Federal Circuit Decision Sheds Light on How Expert Testimony Can Help
January 21, 2022 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Meena Seralathan
USPTO’s New Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response Pilot Program
January 21, 2022 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Meena Seralathan
Opening the Door to the New Beginning
January 10, 2022 | Article
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
PTAB Designates As Informative a Decision Instituting Post-Grant Review for a Design Patent Lacking Ornamentality
June 16, 2020 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Meena Seralathan
Defense in Trademark Action Not Precluded by Failure to Raise Same Defense in Earlier Action
May 15, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Graif, Meena Seralathan
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