Skip to main content

Vincent M. Ferraro

Associate

[email protected]

+1.212.692.6214

Share:

Vincent’s practice focuses on patent disputes in Federal District Courts and before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. With over 10 years of experience, Vincent has handled patent disputes involving telecommunications, cellphone and smartphone technology, digital photography, image processing, electronic circuitry, electrical components, computer software and hardware, LCD technology, data mining, financing, mechanical devices, medical devices and implants, consumer products, GPS technology, e-commerce, and Internet security. In patent litigation cases, he guides clients through all phases of the case, including pre-suit due diligence, claim construction, discovery, depositions, hearings, and trial.

Vincent also has significant experience representing clients in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method (CBM) patent review proceedings. He has represented both petitioners and patent owners in these proceedings.

Vincent also regularly counsels clients on their IP portfolio strategies and assists them in developing design strategies for their products. He works closely with inventors, analyzes new inventions, drafts U.S. patent applications, and prosecutes patents before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in various high-technology fields and on consumer products. He also renders patent freedom-to-operate and validity opinions.

Prior to joining the firm, Vincent was an intellectual property attorney in the New York office of a general practice law firm based in New Jersey. Before this, he was a senior scientific advisor at an intellectual property law firm based in New Jersey. He started his career in IT at a large national payroll processing company.

Education

  • Seton Hall University (JD, cum laude)
  • Rutgers University (BS, Electrical and Computer Engineering)

Experience

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

  • Defense of Multiple IPRs concerning Multilayer Capacitor Technology – represented Patent Owners, American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corporation, in IPR proceedings before the PTAB concerning technology for multilayer capacitor structures.
  • Green Cross Corp. v. Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc. (IPR2016-00258) – represented Petitioner in IPR proceedings before the PTAB concerning the purification of I2S protein.

Federal District Court

  • Connectsoft, Inc. v. NEEO, Inc., 2:16-cv-00548 (ED TX) – Successfully represented the defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit before Judge Gilstrap relating to radio frequency technology. Resulted in a favorable settlement in 2017.

Recognition & Awards

  • Included on the New York Super Lawyers: Rising Star – Intellectual Property Litigation list (2017 - 2018)

Involvement

  • Member, New York Intellectual Property Law Association

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Appeals Viewpoint Thumbnail

Federal Circuit Reminds PTAB That Short Cuts Are Not Allowed

August 11, 2020 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Vincent Ferraro

Last month, in a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) obviousness determination regarding Alacritech’s computer networking patent because the Board failed to adequately explain its findings for three of the challenged claims.
Read more
Federal Circuit Appeals Viewpoint Thumbnail
Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC  confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal court.  Today we cover the panel’s ruling that the Board can use any patentability requirement to evaluate and reject proposed substitute claims in an IPR, notwithstanding that originally-petitioned claims in such proceedings can only be challenged under §§ 102 and 103 based on prior patents and printed publications.
Read more
Federal Circuit Appeals Viewpoint Thumbnail
Last week a Federal Circuit panel in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC issued an important decision regarding inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on two questions concerning contingent motions to amend—(i) whether the Office has statutory authority to review the patentability of substitute claims after a final federal-court judgement of invalidity of those claims and, if yes, (ii) whether that review of patentability may include analyzing the substitute claims for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 
Read more
Trademark Copyright Viewpoints Thumbnail

SCOTUS Rules “Generic.com” Marks Are Eligible For Federal Trademark Protection

July 7, 2020 | Blog | By Susan Neuberger Weller, Vincent Ferraro

In a landmark decision, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., the Supreme Court of the United States, by an 8-1 vote, affirmed the lower court’s determination that Booking.com could register BOOKING.COM as a trademark. 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

PTAB Designates As Informative a Decision Instituting Post-Grant Review for a Design Patent Lacking Ornamentality

June 16, 2020 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Vincent Ferraro, Meena Seralathan

On June 11, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated as informative a July 26, 2019 institution decision granting post-grant review of a design patent for lacking ornamentality. In this ruling, the PTAB provides insight into how it analyzes the unpatentability of a design patent due to lack of ornamentality in post-grant proceedings at the institution stage.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

PTAB Presses Pause On All Arthrex Remands

May 12, 2020 | Blog | By William Meunier, Daniel Weinger, Vincent Ferraro, Matthew Galica

On Friday, May 1, 2020, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) paused all activity in the significant number of PTAB cases remanded to it from the Federal Circuit under Arthrex (discussed here). 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Last week, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, reinforced that an accused infringer can be a “prevailing party” for the purposes of seeking attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it successfully invalidates the asserted patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Federal Circuit Finds IPRs Can Circumvent Assignor Estoppel

April 27, 2020 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Vincent Ferraro, Kara E. Grogan

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit held that while assignor estoppel is applicable in district court proceedings, petitions for inter partes review continue to not be subject to the equitable remedy.  Assignor estoppel is an equitable doctrine based on the principle of fair dealing that prevents a party who divests a patent from later challenging the validity of that patent.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated a January 24, 2020 decision, finding objective indicia of nonobviousness, such as evidence of long-felt need and industry praise, saved a patent owner’s amended claims from invalidation, as precedential.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Attorney Fees Denied by Federal Circuit Where Case Was Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice

April 16, 2020 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Vincent Ferraro, Meena Seralathan

In an April 13, 2020, decision, the Federal Circuit held that neither a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), nor a stay of a patent lawsuit pending the results of a patent reexamination, constitute a final judicial decision for the purposes of recovery of legal fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 
Read more

News & Press

News Thumbnail
Mintz Member Daniel Weinger and Associates Vincent Ferraro and Chris Duerden co-authored a recent Law360 expert analysis article that examined how the Federal Circuit’s en banc ruling in Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal has affected the motion to amend practice at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as well as other favorable trends for patent owners.
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.