Skip to main content

Patrick T. Driscoll

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.3055

Share:

Pat brings practical experience to the firm’s intellectual property practice, having been an electrical engineer for nearly a decade before beginning his legal career. He practices in all areas of intellectual property law with a focus on patent prosecution and litigation. His experience includes a broad range of electrical and computer technologies such as RF, microwave, antenna, phased array, wireless communications, optical networking, telecommunications, signal processing, GPS, consumer electronics, electronic storage, software-based, aviation control, medical devices, lighting, clean energy, and consumer packaging technologies.

Before joining the firm, Pat practiced with an intellectual property law firm where he prosecuted US and international patent applications for entities ranging from sole inventors to multinational corporations, counseled clients on litigation matters, and drafted opinions on infringement, invalidity, and patent enforceability rights. Pat also served as a judicial intern for the Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Prior to entering the law, Pat acquired the technical experience that forms the foundation of his practice at Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems as a Senior Electrical Engineer with Technical Honors in the Antenna and Microwave Department. He led an engineering interoperability study of deckhouse electromagnetic systems for the US Navy Zumwalt-class destroyer and led the design of an Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) Antenna System. He has also designed a phased array antenna element and developed a software simulation tool for modeling polarization compensation in phased arrays used for satellite communications.

While in law school, Pat served as the President of the IP Technology Forum and as an Editor of the IPTF Journal.

Education

  • Boston College (JD)
  • University of Massachusetts - Amherst (MS, Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering)
  • Syracuse University (BS, Electrical Engineering, cum laude)

Recognition & Awards

  • Included on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Rising Star – Intellectual Property Litigation list (2013 - 2018)

Involvement

  • Member, American Bar Association
  • Member, Boston Patent Law Association
  • Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Viewpoints

A California jury recently awarded Apple $538.6 million in total damages for patent infringement by Samsung. This is the latest development in the patent battle between smartphone industry titans that began in 2011 and took another step towards completion.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a propose change to the standard for construing both unexpired and amended patent claims in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings under the America Invents Act (“AIA”).
In a first of its kind decision with important ramifications for patentees, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) denied a petition to suspend or temporarily rescind remedial orders issued in Investigation No. 337-TA-945 pending appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) separate finding that the patent claims at issue are invalid.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued Final Written Decisions regarding Cisco’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,377,577 (the “’577 Patent”) and 7,023,853 (the “’853 Patent”) on May 25, 2017 and U.S. Patent No. 7,224,668 (the “’668 Patent”) on June 1, 2017.
For just the third time ever, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”) recently sided with a Patent Owner in an inter partes review (“IPR”) to find that evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness compelled rejection of the Petitioner’s invalidity challenges.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court held that the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a damages award for design patent infringement need not be the end product sold to the consumer, but may be only a component of that product.
The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”).
Think you’ve won on validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and your claims are safe on appeal? “Not so fast,” says the Federal Circuit in Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook Inc., Nos. 2015-1649 through 2015-1563 (Fed. Cir., Sep. 9, 2016) (nonprecedential) (per curiam).
On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit ruled in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company that vesting the Patent Office with power to take back previously conferred patent rights through inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment. 
September 16, 2014, marked the two year anniversary since certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act went into effect, including post-grant Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

News & Press

Fifty-three Mintz attorneys have been named Massachusetts Super Lawyers for 2016 and thirty-one have been named Massachusetts Rising Stars. The findings will be published in the November 2016 issue of Boston Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New England Super Lawyers.