Peter is an experienced intellectual property litigator and trial attorney who represents clients in federal courts around the country, including US district courts and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as before the US International Trade Commission. Peter also represents clients in contested proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He handles patent infringement, validity, and other types of disputes for clients in a variety of sectors, including high technology related to electronics, e-commerce, medical technology, energy & sustainability, and financial services.
Peter's diverse litigation experience extends both in and out of the courtroom. He has served as both lead and co-counsel in front of juries at trial, advocated for clients at oral arguments and evidentiary hearings before Article III judges, deposed and defended the depositions of fact and expert witnesses, and managed teams that advance his clients' goals through strategic discovery.
The areas of technology in which Peter has particular experience include communications systems and networking, integrated circuits, semiconductor technology, electronics components, powerline networks, RFID, broadband applications for cable and satellite television systems, and internet applications and e-commerce. Peter has a degree in Electrical Engineering, summa cum laude.
- Fordham University (JD)
- Rutgers University (BSEE)
Federal District Court
- Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp. et al. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 2:14-cv-06544-KAM (E.D.N.Y.) - Served as lead counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs in a 10-day jury trial concerning patent infringement, involving passive electronic components, in the Eastern District of New York. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, finding infringement of both asserted patents. Also represented the patent owner in simultaneous inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
- Boom! Payments, Inc. v. Stripe, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-00590-VC (N.D. Cal.) - Defended an e-commerce company against allegations of infringement of three patents in the Northern District of California. The Court dismissed the action in its entirety following a motion to dismiss for lack of patent-eligible subject matter under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice decision. Also representing the defendant on appeal before the Federal Circuit and in simultaneous covered business method review (“CBM”) proceedings before the PTAB.
- 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.
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Shopify, Inc., 1:17-cv-00498-CFC (D. Del.) – Defending an e-commerce company against allegations of patent infringement. Also representing the defendant in simultaneous IPR proceedings before the PTAB.
- Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 3:14-cv-02061-H-BGS (S.D. Cal.) - Defended an electrical components manufacturer in a patent infringement action in the Southern District of California and before the Federal Circuit. Also represented the defendant in simultaneous ex parte reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”).
- Canon Inc. v. Avigilon USA Corp. et al., (N.D. Tex., 3:18-cv-01317-K) - Defended a provider of networked video surveillance cameras, control devices, and associated software in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Texas. Also represented the defendant in simultaneous IPR proceedings before the PTAB.
- Axcess Int’l Inc. v. Savi Tech. Inc., 3:10-cv-1033-K (N.D. Tex.) - Defended an electronics manufacturer in a patent infringement action, involving RFID systems, in the Northern District of Texas and in simultaneous ex parte reexamination proceedings before the PTO. The Court dismissed the district court action after the PTO held the patent invalid.
- Connectsoft, Inc. v. NEEO, Inc., 2:16-cv-00548-JRG (E.D. Tex.) - Represented the defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas relating to radio frequency technology. The case was dismissed after the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
- Rentrop v. Spectranetics Corp., 04-cv-0101-PKC (S.D.N.Y.) - Represented owner and inventor of patents concerning excimer laser catheters in a patent infringement action in the Southern District of New York.
International Trade Commission
- Certain Semiconductor Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1177) - Represented the complainant GlobalFoundries before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in an investigation involving infringement of four patents related to semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, and products containing the same.
- Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software (337-TA-882) - Represented an owner of GPS and media sharing patents before the ITC.
- Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) - Represented the owner of a portfolio of communications and computing patents from the former enterprise communications business unit of a large multinational company, Enterprise System Technologies, S.A.R.L.
Recognition & Awards
- Included on the New York Super Lawyers: Rising Star – Intellectual Property list (2012 – 2018)
- Tau Beta Pi
- Eta Kappa Nu
- Golden Key Honors Society
- Member, New York Intellectual Property Law Association