Skip to main content

Tianyi Tan


[email protected]



Tianyi is an intellectual property litigator whose practice emphasizes patent matters in federal district courts and at the International Trade Commission. As a member of litigation teams, she researches prior art, drafts discovery requests, conducts document review, drafts deposition inquiries, and helps at all stages of cases, from complaint drafting through appeal.

Tianyi was a Summer Associate at Mintz in 2020, during which time she researched patent issues and prepared memoranda on topics including patent enforcement, prior art, and International Trade Commission proceedings.

While earning her JD degree at Harvard, Tianyi served as senior article editor of the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, article editor and citation manager of the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, and article editor of the Harvard Human Rights Journal. She was also a project team leader for Harvard’s Recording Artists Project (RAP). As an undergraduate at the University of Notre Dame, Tianyi was an International Scholar and research assistant in the Kellogg International Scholars Program.


On January 26, 2022, in what appears to be a case of first impression, U.S. District Court Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a biosimilar applicant defendant’s motion to dismiss patent infringement claims brought in the second phase of the parties’ Biosimilar Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) litigation. In so doing, Judge Lee held that the reference product sponsor (“RPS”) plaintiff is not limited to only declaratory judgment actions in the second phase of litigation under the BPCIA.
Read more
On February 8, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the plaintiff’s motion to exclude defendant’s expert testimony for being “based on an erroneous legal theory” in a suit alleging defendants’ proposed generic Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) product would infringe Exela’s patents under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Judge Noreika’s decision in this case reinforces the Federal Circuit’s holding in Sunovion and serves as a reminder that ANDA product infringement is primarily assessed by comparing the asserted claims with the ANDA specification, rather than other ANDA submission materials further describing the ANDA product.
Read more
In what appears to be an effort to standardize and professionalize its mediation practices and procedures, China recently enacted new rules governing the mediation of intellectual property disputes. Issued by the Mediation Center of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, a national foreign trade body, the new rules create a framework that can guide IP dispute mediation nationwide. It appears that China is hoping that these steps will make it a more popular mediation forum among foreign parties.
Read more
In a recent IAM article, Levelling the playing field in ITC patent cases by identifying redesigns to a set deadline, we commented on best practices for ITC complainants to protect their interests against the nascent uptick of redesign submissions at the tail end of fact discovery. Although reasonable minds can differ as to whether the uptick in motion practice is coincidence or a more troubling sign that some respondents are using late redesign disclosures as a vehicle to put complainants at a disadvantage in fast-paced Section 337 proceedings, such late disclosures undoubtedly prejudice complainants’ ability to fully review and assess such disclosures for possible infringement.
Read more
Read less

Recognition & Awards

  • Ranked by Patexia among the Best Performing ITC Attorneys Representing Complainants (2024)

Read less