
Nicholas is a litigator who combines practical advice with deep experience to deliver results for his clients who find themselves the target of a lawsuit, or require the assistance of the courts to resolve a dispute. Nicholas represents clients in federal and state court, and at the International Trade Commission, where his practice covers all aspects of IP litigation with a focus on cases concerning allegations of trade secret misappropriation. Nicholas has delivered results for clients in a variety of technology areas, including network devices, semiconductors, consumer electronics, medical devices, and manufacturing devices.
Nicholas brings robust courtroom experience to litigating trade secret and other matters. Aside from the trial work he has done for his clients at Mintz, while a Special Assistant District Attorney in the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office, Nicholas prosecuted over 150 criminal matters, trying well over a dozen jury and bench trials. Prior to joining Mintz, Nick worked for Hon. Ralph D. Gants, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and Hon. Patti B. Saris, Chief Judge of the US District Court, District of Massachusetts.
Experience
Select Trade Secret Litigation
- Palleon Pharms. Inc. v. Aviceda Therapeutics, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 21-10755 (D. Mass.) – Represented defendants in case alleging misappropriation of trade secrets related to glycol-immunology to treat various human disorders associated with cancer and inflammation.
- Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland), Inc., et al. v. Buan, et al., 19-cv-2648 (N.D. Ill) – Represent Plaintiff in trade secret misappropriation action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Novatrans Group S.A. v. Vital Farms, Inc. et al., 1:18-cv-01012-RGA (D. Del.) – Represented Plaintiff in trade secret misappropriation action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Select Patent Litigation
- Nanoco Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Civil Case No. 2:20-cv-00038 (E.D. Tex.) – Represent plaintiff in a case alleging infringement of patents on the synthesis of quantum dots, and the use of quantum dot film resins in televisions and other electronic display devices.
- Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., Civil Case No. 6:19-cv-432 (W.D. Tex.) – Represented plaintiff in patent litigation asserting patents related to voice activation and speech recognition.
- Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-892) – Represented complainant in patent litigation involving streaming media technology at the ITC and in parallel case in the Eastern District of Texas.
- Advanced Aerodynamics, LLC v. Spin Master, Ltd., Civil Case No. 6:21-cv-00002 (W.D. Tex.) – Represented defendant in patent litigation alleging infringement of patents concerning self-righting aeronautical vehicles.
- Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-1052, -1073) – Represented Complainant in this ITC investigation, and in parallel Federal District Court cases.
- Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) - Represented Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of automotive manufacturers, and infotainment system and chip suppliers.
- Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) - Represented Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of consumer electronics companies.
Select Trade Secret Litigation
- Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland), Inc., et al. v. Buan, et al., 19-cv-2648 (N.D. Ill) – Represent Plaintiff in trade secret misappropriation action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Novatrans Group S.A. v. Vital Farms, Inc. et al., 1:18-cv-01012-RGA (D. Del.) – Represented Plaintiff in trade secret misappropriation action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Select Patent Litigation
- Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-1052, -1073) – Represented Complainant in this ITC investigation, and in parallel Federal District Court cases.
- Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) - Represented Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of automotive manufacturers, and infotainment system and chip suppliers.
- Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) - Represented Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of consumer electronics companies.
- Represented complainant in patent litigation involving streaming media technology at the ITC and in parallel case in the Eastern District of Texas.
- Represent plaintiff in a case alleging infringement of patents on the synthesis of quantum dots, and the use of quantum dot film resins in televisions and other electronic display devices.
- Represented plaintiff in patent litigation asserting patents related to voice activation and speech recognition.
Select Inter Partes Reviews
- Victory at CAFC: PTAB Decision Reversed and Remanded – Represented Straight Path IP Group in successfully appealing to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) the adverse result of an inter partes review handled by another firm. The IPR decision canceled all challenged claims of Straight Path’s U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704. In the Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU SRO appeal, the CAFC for the first time completely reversed an adverse IPR decision, remanding the matter for further proceedings under the correct construction advocated by Mintz and Straight Path.
- Defense of Multiple IPRs – Point-to-Point Communication Over Computer Networks – Currently representing Straight Path IP Group in the defense of seventeen inter partes reviews filed against three U.S. patents concerning technology for facilitating point-to-point communications over computer networks. Petitioners include Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Cisco Systems, Inc.; Avaya Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.; Toshiba Corp.; VIZIO, Inc.; Verizon Communications, Inc.; and Hulu, LLC.
Federal District Court
- Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited et al., 13-cv-00604 (E.D. Tex.) – Currently representing plaintiff in a patent infringement case relating to smartphones, televisions, tablets, and related technology.
- This case was consolidated with Docket 1857 - Securenet v. Agent Video
viewpoints
An Emerging Split on the Applicability of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine Under the DTSA
October 10, 2022 | Blog | By Oliver Ennis, Nicholas Armington, Adam Samansky
Open Question: Use of Stolen Trade Secrets May or May Not Qualify as a Predicate Act Under RICO
March 10, 2022 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Michael McNamara, Nicholas Armington, Oliver Ennis
Trade Secret Misappropriation Not Sufficiently Plead Where Defendant Possessed but did Not Threaten to Disclose Trade Secret Information in Southern District of New York Case
January 25, 2022 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington
Removing Barriers to Second Chances
January 24, 2022 | Article
Federal Circuit Reiterates Requirement under § 287 that Alleged Infringers have Notice of Specific Alleged Infringement
September 9, 2021 | Blog | By Peter Cuomo, Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington
Fast Track to Justice for Trade Secret Theft at the ITC: New Senate Bill Would Expand ITC Authority to Curtail Trade Secret Theft by Foreign Governments
June 23, 2021 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Rich Gervase, Nicholas Armington
Fact-Specific Inquiry: Deciding Between Trade Secret and Patent Protection
September 15, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington
Rules of Engagement: Minimizing Trade Secret Disputes when Hiring Rival Employees
September 10, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington
Playing Fair: Protect Trade Secrets from Business Partners
September 8, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington
Workplace Confidential: Preventing Former Employees from Using Your Trade Secrets
August 24, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington
News & Press
Watching The DTSA Court Split On Inevitable Disclosure
October 18, 2022
The Defend Trade Secrets Act: A Powerful New Tool for Employers
October 25, 2016
Events & Speaking
Trade Secret Threat Looms Due to Economic Downturn: Protecting and enforcing trade secrets in the COVID era
View the Webinar Recording

Trade Secrets: The Legal and Economic Implications of DTSA
Berkeley Research Group, 1800 M Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC

The Defend Trade Secrets Act: Rising Developments and Trends Employers Should Know
The Knowledge Group
Webinar
