Skip to main content

Rithika Kulathila

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.210.6874

Share:

Rithika is an intellectual property litigator with a technical background in biochemistry and molecular biology. She regularly litigates in US District Courts and at the US International Trade Commission, and assists clients with matters involving patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets.

Rithika earned her JD from UC Berkeley Law School, while also serving as a judicial extern to the Hon. Susan Y. Illston of United States District Court for the Northern District of California and a legal intern for the medical-legal partnership at the East Bay Community Law Center in Berkeley, California. Rithika earned a Law & Technology Certificate, and participated in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal and the Workers’ Rights Disability Law Clinic. She also served as co-president of the Healthcare and Biotech Law Society and the South Asian Law Student Association.

Prior to attending law school, Rithika worked as an academic and support services coordinator for a nonprofit that works with middle school and high school girls and served as a health policy intern for a former Massachusetts State Senator.

Education

  • University of California - Berkeley (JD)
  • University of Massachusetts - Amherst (BS)

Viewpoints

Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

SCOTUS holds that PTAB Time-Bar Determinations are Not Reviewable on Appeal

April 22, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Newman, Serge Subach, Rithika Kulathila

On Monday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Cal Technologies, the Supreme Court held that § 315(b) time-bar determinations are not subject to judicial review. In this 7-2 decision penned by Justice Ginsburg, with Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor dissenting, the Court determined that time-bar determinations are unreviewable because they are “closely tied” to the Director’s decision to institute an inter partes review (IPR).
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
The Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) recently rejected a rehearing request from a petitioner where institution was denied because of the likelihood that a district court trial would occur prior to a final written decision. 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Mintz is recognized as among the top ten firms in ITC Section 337 litigation by Patexia in its inaugural "ITC Intelligence Report". We are pleased to be among the firms included in this publication and thrilled that it has come on the heels of a great year at the ITC for the Mintz team.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
To amend challenged claims during an Inter Partes Review (IPR), the patent owner must show that the proposed amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability at issue in the IPR trial. 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Judge Gilliam of the Northern District of California recently answered this question and provided helpful guidance on the interplay of IPRs, reexaminations and district court litigation. In IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al., v. Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd. and IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc., Judge Gilliam denied plaintiffs’ (“IXI”) motion for leave to amend their infringement contentions and asserted claims because IXI was not diligent in identifying new contentions or new accused products.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
In Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n (18-1247), the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) finding that Amarin’s false advertising claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act was precluded by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) because these claims require the FDA’s guidance on whether possible non-compliance of the provision is a violation of the FDCA.  The court also found that the Commission may decline to institute an investigation where there is no cognizable claim under § 337.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
Recently, in Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., the Delaware District Court awarded the prevailing plaintiff in a patent infringement suit an ongoing royalty that covers not only the products adjudicated to infringe but also non-adjudicated products that were “not colorably different” from the adjudicated products.  The court noted that the patent claims asserted by the plaintiff, IP Bridge, were found to be essential to the LTE standard because LTE phones do not operate on the LTE network without infringing the asserted claims. 
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On April 25, 2019, in Int’l Designs Corp., LLC, et. al. v. Hair Art Int’l, Inc., Judge George H. Wu in the Central District of California denied Hair Art’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.  Judge Wu concluded that, based on an analysis of the totality of the circumstances, “[t]his case was certainly ‘exceptional,’ but it was exceptional in that both parties made litigation choices leading to a significant waste of party and judicial resources.”  (Emphasis added.)
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail

When Is Pre-Acquisition Analysis of Patents Protected from Discovery During Litigation?

March 29, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Rithika Kulathila

A Discovery Master in Limestone Memory Systems LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc. pending in the Central District of California recently provided additional guidance to practitioners and patent owners on this important question.  The report, issued on February 19, 2019, sustained in part the plaintiff Limestone’s privilege and work product assertions related to pre-acquisition analysis of the asserted patents conducted by Acacia, Limestone’s parent company.  In doing so, the report emphasized that courts have long held that attorney-client privilege may arise when a company obtains legal advice, while seeking to acquire patents, protecting from discovery communications between the acquiring company and inventors.  
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail

Expert’s Lump-sum Damage Calculation is Not Inadmissible Because it Accounts for Future Sales of Potentially Non-accused Products

March 28, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Rithika Kulathila, Kara E. Grogan

A recent order from the District of Delaware in Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 15-00542 (“Evolved Wireless”) provides interesting guidance regarding the use of future sales in calculating lump-sum damages.
Read more