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) – Representing DivX, a video codec company headquartered in San Diego, in enforcing patents before the ITC, in the District of Delaware and Eastern District of Texas, and in German and Brazilian courts. The asserted patents involve innovations relating to internet video and streaming media. LG and Samsung settled prior to the ITC evidentiary hearing which was held with remaining respondents in July 2021.
  • 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

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
Trademark Copyright Viewpoints Thumbnail

Supreme Court Holds that States Cannot Copyright Annotated Versions of Their Statutes

April 29, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Graif, Meena Seralathan

On April 27, 2020, the Supreme Court held that annotations to legislative text, even if created by a private contracted party, are not copyrightable materials under 17 U.S.C. §101. Invoking the government edicts doctrine, the Court made explicit the notion that all members of government involved in lawmaking, including state legislators, are barred from being “authors” for purposes of copyright protection.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Last week, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, reinforced that an accused infringer can be a “prevailing party” for the purposes of seeking attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it successfully invalidates the asserted patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Last week, the US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released a report detailing its findings on how the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, as well as subsequent USPTO guidance on 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, has affected rates of, and variability between, office action rejections.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated a January 24, 2020 decision, finding objective indicia of nonobviousness, such as evidence of long-felt need and industry praise, saved a patent owner’s amended claims from invalidation, as precedential.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
In an April 13, 2020, decision, the Federal Circuit held that neither a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), nor a stay of a patent lawsuit pending the results of a patent reexamination, constitute a final judicial decision for the purposes of recovery of legal fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 
Read more