Skip to main content

Peter F. Snell

Member

[email protected]

+1.212.692.6850

Share:

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. 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 applications and e-commerce, machine learning, software, business methods, and medical devices.

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, packet switching, integrated circuits, semiconductor technology, powerline networks, RFID, electronics components, broadband applications for cable and satellite television systems, and internet applications and e-commerce. Peter has a degree in Electrical Engineering, summa cum laude.

Education

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

Experience

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Representing an owner of patents directed to assembly and fastening technologies against automotive manufacturers and suppliers in the District of Delaware
  • Defending an electrical components manufacturer in a patent infringement action in the Southern District of California and before the Federal Circuit
  • Defending a provider of networked video surveillance cameras, control devices, and associated software in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Texas
  • Defended an electronics manufacturer in a patent infringement action, involving RFID systems, in the Northern District of Texas and simultaneous proceedings before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office ("PTO"). The Court dismissed the district court action after the PTO held the patent invalid.
  • 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.
  • Represented an owner of GPS and media sharing patents in the International Trade Commission, the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas
  • 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
  • Represented an owner and inventor of patents concerning excimer laser catheters in a patent infringement action in the Southern District of New York
  • Defended an electronics manufacturer in a patent infringement action, concerning smartphone technology, in the District of Delaware
  • Defended a medical device manufacturer in an action involving breach of contract and patent misuse in the Central District of California
  • Defended a provider of network switches in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas
  • Serving as counsel for the petitioner and patent owner in multiple IPRs and CBMs including, for example, with respect to passive capacitors, network surveillance technology, and e-commerce

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 Thumbnail

What is Intellectual Property, and Why is it Important?

March 23, 2016 | Article | By Peter Snell

IP 101: This deck gives entrepreneurs the “need-to-know” information about trademarks, copyrights, patents and trade secrets.
Read more

A "Solution" In Search of a Problem?

March 13, 2015 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Peter Snell, Robert Moore

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.
Read more
On February 5, 2015, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 9, entitled the “Innovation Act.”
Read more

Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell: $1.5 Billion at Stake at the Federal Circuit

January 13, 2015 | Advisory | By Michael Renaud, Peter Snell, Vincent Ferraro

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.
Read more

Questions Remain in US - Is Software Patentable?

May 18, 2013 | Blog | By Rich Gervase, Peter Snell

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). 
Read more

Patent Eligibility of Software Innovations After CLS Bank

May 17, 2013 | Advisory | By Rich Gervase, Peter Snell

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.
Read more

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

Moderator
Sep
18
2019

The 2nd Annual LF Dealmakers Forum

The Apella, 450 East 29th Street, 2nd Floor, New York

Panelist
Sep
18
2018

2018 LF Dealmakers Forum

The IP Investment Institute, LLC

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