Skip to main content

Peter F. Snell

Member

[email protected]

+1.212.692.6850

Share:

Peter is an experienced intellectual property litigator 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. He handles patent infringement, validity, and other types of disputes for clients in a variety of sectors, including high technology related to electronics, medical technology, energy & sustainability, and financial services. He draws on his extensive knowledge of communications systems and networking, semiconductor technology, electronics components, Internet and e-commerce applications, machine learning, software, business methods, and medical devices.

Peter's diverse litigation experience extends both in and out of the courtroom. He has examined witnesses 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, packet switching, integrated circuits, semiconductor technology, powerline networks, RFID, electronics components, broadband applications for cable and satellite television systems, Internet and e-commerce applications, machine learning, software, business methods, and medical devices. Peter has a degree in Electrical Engineering, summa cum laude.

Education

  • Fordham University (JD)
  • Rutgers University (BSEE)

Experience

  • Defending an electronics manufacturer in a patent infringement action, involving RFID systems, in the Northern District of Texas
  • Representing an owner of GPS and media sharing patents in the International Trade Commission, the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas
  • Defending an electrical components manufacturer in a patent infringement action, involving multilayer capacitors, in the Southern District of California and before the Federal Circuit
  • Represented the owner of a portfolio of communications and computing patents from the former enterprise communications business unit of a large multinational company in the International Trade Commission
  • Representing an owner and inventor of patents concerning excimer laser catheters in a patent infringement action in the Southern District of New York
  • Defending an electronics manufacturer in a patent infringement action, concerning smartphone technology, in the District of Delaware
  • Defending a medical device manufacturer in an action involving breach of contract and patent misuse in the Central District of California
  • Defending a provider of network switches in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas
  • Represented the defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas relating to radio frequency technology
  • Defense of multiple IPRs including, for example, with respect to passive capacitors

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

Involvement

  • Member, New York Intellectual Property Law Association

Recent Insights

News & Press

Events

Viewpoints

Viewpoint
Continuing our coverage of the Federal Circuit’s Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp. (“Internet Time”) decision, on Tuesday, October 23, 2018, the Federal Circuit denied RPX’s request to rehear the case en banc.  Internet Time held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must use a flexible approach when determining what entities constitute real parties in interest for the purpose of inter partes review (“IPR”). See Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336 (July 9, 2018) (“Internet Time”). Petitioners for IPR challenging a patent must identify all real parties in interest in their petition. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Director is not authorized to institute trial on the petition if the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner, was served with an infringement complaint for the patent in question more than one year before the petition’s filing. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
Viewpoint
Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) provided yet another arrow in the patent owner’s quiver for defending against institution of IPRs.  In NHK International Corp. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-00752, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and denied institution because the asserted art was already considered during the original examination of the patent.  The PTAB also found that denial was warranted under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in light of the additional factor that a district court trial on the same patent was imminent. 
Viewpoint
On September 7, 2018, RPX Corporation (“RPX”) requested a rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit’s July 2018 Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp. decision, which held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must use a flexible approach when determining what entities constitute real parties in interest for the purpose of inter partes review (“IPR”).
Viewpoint
Six months later, and more than 2.5 years after service of the complaint on Activision, Bungie filed IPRs challenging Worlds’ patents.
Late last week, the Federal Circuit granted a writ of mandamus in In re Cray, 2017-129 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2017), overturning Judge Gilstrap’s four-factor test for determining whether a defendant possesses “a regular and established place of business” in a district such that the defendant could be sued for patent infringement in that district.
The Innovation Act introduced in the House on February 5, 2015 is designed to curb patent abuse, but as currently drafted it doesn't address the worst forms of the problem.
On February 5, 2015, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 9, entitled the “Innovation Act.”
Currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is Carnegie Mellon University’s (“CMU”) $1.535 billion judgment for patent infringement against Marvell Technology Group Ltd. and Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively “Marvell”), which is one of the largest damages awards for patent infringement in history.
After an en banc hearing at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), questions remain about the patent eligibility of software under US Patent and Trademark Office rules (specifically, § 101). 
The en banc Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently could not agree on the proper approach for determining whether software-based inventions constitute patent eligible subject matter under § 101 of the patent statute or whether they fall within the judicially-created “abstract ideas” exception to patent eligibility as it has evolved under existing Supreme Court precedent.

News & Press

Fourteen Mintz attorneys have been named New York Super Lawyers for 2017 and thirteen have been named New York Rising Stars. New York Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers with the highest degree of peer recognition and professional achievements.  
Sixteen Mintz attorneys have been named New York Super Lawyers for 2016 and twelve have been named New York Rising Stars. The list will be published in a special advertising supplement in The New York Times Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New York Super Lawyers - Metro Edition.
Thirteen attorneys from Mintz have been named New York Super Lawyers for 2014 and eleven have been named New York Rising Stars. The list will be published in a special advertising supplement in The New York Times Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New York Super Lawyers - Metro Edition.

Events

Panelist
Sep
18
2018

2018 LF Dealmakers Forum

The IP Investment Institute, LLC

450 East 29th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY