Serge’s intellectual property practice focuses on patent litigation. His experience spans broad technical fields including software, consumer electronics, and medical devices.
Before joining Mintz, Serge worked for TomTom, Inc., where he interfaced between product management and engineering departments in coordinating beta testing of both software and hardware products.
During law school, Serge served as President of the Intellectual Property Law Association and as Managing Business Editor of the New England Journal on Criminal Civil Confinement.
Education
- New England Law (JD, cum laude)
- Northeastern University (BS, Mechanical Engineering)
Experience
International Trade Commission
- Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) - Represented owner of portfolio of communications and computing patents from former enterprise communications business unit of large multinational innovation company. An ITC investigation was instituted in August 2014 as to respondent entities Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and HTC Corporation. Google participated as an intervenor. The investigation resolved prior to evidentiary hearing in June of 2015.
- Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884) - Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC. Investigation was instituted in June 2013 and among the respondent entities were Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, and ZTE. Most respondents settled. After an evidentiary hearing held over several days in May 2014, on August 29, 2014 Mintz successfully obtained a recommendation for a Limited Exclusion Order against the remaining respondent, which chose to settle while Commission review of the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination was pending.
Inter Partes Reviews
- Represented Petitioners SL Corporation and Hyundai Motor America, Inc., in two inter partes review proceedings challenging the validity of a patent directed to automatic adjustment of automotive headlights based on signals from inertial sensors and/or potentiometers. The PTAB invalidated all challenged claims in the patents. IPR2016-00193, IPR2016-00079
Languages
- Russian
Recent Insights
Viewpoints
The FUCT Mark: Is the Prohibition on Scandalous Marks Unconstitutional?
March 14, 2019|Blog
§102(b) Printed Publication: Unrestricted Distribution at a Trade Show
November 5, 2018|Blog
ITC Provides Clarity on the Meaning of a Section 337(a)(2) “Article”
October 31, 2018|Alert
News & Press
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has announced it's launching an investigation into whether thermoplastic parts used in certain BMW, Honda, and Toyota vehicle models have infringed five patents owned by Intellectual Ventures LLC.
Mintz announced a pair of victories before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on behalf of SL Corporation and Hyundai Motor America, Inc. against Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.
Viewpoints
The FUCT Mark: Is the Prohibition on Scandalous Marks Unconstitutional?
March 14, 2019 | Blog | By Susan Neuberger Weller, Adam Samansky, Serge Subach
The constitutionality of yet another portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act will soon be determined. Following in the footsteps of the blockbuster decision in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (“Tam”), the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Iancu v. Brunetti on January 4, 2019. In Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court held that the prohibition in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act against registering disparaging trademarks at the U.S. Trademark Office (“USPTO”) was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. However, Section 2(a) also prohibits the registration of other categories of marks, including marks that are immoral and scandalous. It is the constitutionality of this prohibition which is at issue in Brunetti.
§102(b) Printed Publication: Unrestricted Distribution at a Trade Show
November 5, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Serge Subach
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion issued on November 1, 2018 clarifies the standard for a document to qualify as a “printed publication” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) and reversed an earlier Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision.1 Specifically, the requirement that a reference be “publicly available” is not as narrow as the PTAB had interpreted. The Court held that “the standard for public accessibility [of an alleged prior art reference] is one of reasonable diligence, to locate the information by interested members of the relevant public.”
ITC Provides Clarity on the Meaning of a Section 337(a)(2) “Article”
October 31, 2018 | Alert | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Aarti Shah, Marguerite McConihe, Serge Subach
This article examines a recent International Trade Commission decision that opens up the ITC to complainants in an earlier phase of product development.
Apple and Samsung Are Headed Back to the Court Room
October 25, 2017 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Serge Subach
Following a lengthy and extensive litigation that began in 2011 that culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in December of 2016, smartphone industry titans Apple and Samsung will again find themselves in Federal District Court Judge Lucy Koh’s courtroom on remand to determine appropriate damages for Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s design patents.
Patent Litigation Venue: Supreme Court Clarifies Venue Statutes in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods.
May 24, 2017 | Blog | By Matthew Hurley, Brad M Scheller, Serge Subach
The U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC on May 22, 2017, a patent infringement case that has garnered national attention for its implications on venue.
Will 30 Years Of Practice Be Overturned? Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods.
March 29, 2017 | Blog | By Matthew Hurley, Serge Subach, Robert Moore
On Monday, March 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, a case that could have a profound impact on where patent infringement cases may be litigated.
The Federal Circuit Confirms That It Will Review PTAB’s CBM Determinations … To A Certain Extent
December 2, 2016 | Blog | By William Meunier, Serge Subach
The Federal Circuit has again addressed which types of patents are eligible for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review before the Patent Trial & Appeals Board.
Competitors in the Courtroom: When to Exclude a Party’s Designated Representative from Hearing a Competitor’s Trade Secrets
May 23, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Serge Subach
“You sued them. They stay, period.” This is the conclusion a Texas trial court came to when asked to exclude the designated representative of a party from a hearing where an employee of the other party, a direct competitor, would disclose his employer’s trade secrets.
Could the Eastern District of Texas’s Reign Come to an End?
March 17, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Robert Moore, Serge Subach
It has become a patent litigation trope, discussed at every Silicon Valley water cooler, that patent litigation is broken because all patent cases are tried in the plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas. While this reputation is arguably undeserved, the Eastern District of Texas does end up with the majority of patent cases.
Washington Redskins Haven’t Won Yet: Why the Constitutionality of Section 2(a) is Not Yet Final
January 4, 2016 | Blog | By Susan Neuberger Weller, Serge Subach
What do Washington D.C.’s NFL team, the Redskins, and Mr. Tam’s rock band, The Slants, have in common? Both have enjoyed unexpected victories recently and both have been called “disparaging” by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
News & Press
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has announced it's launching an investigation into whether thermoplastic parts used in certain BMW, Honda, and Toyota vehicle models have infringed five patents owned by Intellectual Ventures LLC.
Mintz Triumphs for SL Corporation and Hyundai Motor America, Inc. Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
March 16, 2017
Mintz announced a pair of victories before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on behalf of SL Corporation and Hyundai Motor America, Inc. against Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.