Skip to main content

Rithika Kulathila

(she/her/hers)

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

IPRs and Other Post-Grant Porceedings Viewpoint Thumbnail

Patent Owner Tip #11 for Surviving an Instituted IPR: Use It or Lose It (in the POR)

July 1, 2021 | Blog | By William Meunier, Rithika Kulathila

When faced with an instituted IPR, the Patent Owner should include all arguments it wishes to preserve for appeal in its Patent Owner Response (“POR”), including arguments that the Patent Owner believes are unlikely to succeed before the Board but may be attractive to the Federal Circuit.  Otherwise, the argument will be deemed waived and unavailable in any subsequent appeal.
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail

Arthrex SCOTUS Ruling: The IPR Show Must Go On, Just with (a Bit) More Oversight

June 24, 2021 | Blog | By William Meunier, Brad M Scheller, Andrew DeVoogd, Rithika Kulathila

On Monday, in a highly-anticipated decision, a fractured Supreme Court issued its opinion in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, striking a portion of the America Invents Act (AIA) as unconstitutional—but providing an effectively toothless remedy.
Read more
IPRs and Other Post-Grant Porceedings Viewpoint Thumbnail
Expert declarations are an essential component of any patent owner’s effort to survive an instituted inter partes review (“IPR”). The Board relies heavily on expert testimony in order to evaluate and understand the technology at issue from the point of view of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”).
Read more
IPRs and Other Post-Grant Porceedings Viewpoint Thumbnail
As discussed in our previous post, one of the most critical tasks for Patent Owners during the Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”) discovery period is deposing the Petitioner’s expert. Since IPR depositions are treated differently than fact-gathering depositions in district court litigation, a Patent Owner should approach the IPR deposition with different goals.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Year in Review: The Most Popular IP Posts of 2020

January 14, 2021 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

As 2021 begins and intellectual property (IP) strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2020.  According to many readers, hot topics included Chinese foreign filing licenses, patenting involving either artificial intelligence (AI) or COVID-19, inter partes review, and attorney fee awards.
Read more
Federal Circuit Appeals Viewpoint Thumbnail
In Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard, No. 18-2338, the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated multiple aspects of the district court’s final judgment holding that Hewlett-Packard (HP) did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 (“the ’930 patent”) disclosing an apparatus and method for remotely powering Ethernet compatible equipment.
Read more
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