Litigation

Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation

Patent litigation demands a significant investment of your time and capital. At Mintz Levin, we understand this — and fully appreciate your need for an efficient, cost-effective approach to defending against patent claims or enforcing your patent rights so you can continue to focus on the bottom line, providing the innovative products and services that put your company ahead of the rest. Our team of highly experienced and highly successful trial lawyers will help you achieve winning results in the most efficient manner.

When disputes arise you need lawyers who not only understand the science behind your patents, but who also are seasoned litigators with proven track records of winning time and time again. Our litigators are prepared, right from the start, to take your case to trial if a prompt settlement cannot be negotiated. We’re skilled in all phases of litigation, from a realistic assessment of damages and the impact of the case on your business through claim construction, summary judgment, and trial in key jurisdictions throughout the United States and before international tribunals.

Our seasoned trial teams are staffed with attorneys who each have defined roles that will not change on the eve of trial. Our best and brightest attorneys will litigate your case from start to finish, using the latest litigation and Mintz Levin’s nationwide presence to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and deliver the best possible results.

Quick Facts


  • Tried cases to verdict in federal district courts across the country, including through appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Significant international experience including before European arbitration tribunals, the International Chamber of Commerce, and the US International Trade Commission
  • Experience defending against patent claims brought by patent holding companies against multiple defendants in well-known venues, including the Eastern District of Texas
  • Achieved success in patent litigation across the United States, in the Eastern District of Texas; US International Trade Commission; the Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California; and the District of Delaware
  • Led 20+ document reviews involving over 2 billion documents in the past five years
  • Sensitivity to regulations governing companies in health care–related industries, including HIPAA, privacy regulations, and international data transfer limitations
  • Coordination between litigation and transactional attorneys to assess your company’s portfolio for valuable intellectual property and to assist you in establishing and enforcing a licensing program
  • Deep technical experience in a broad range of areas, including the following:
    • Electronics
    • Computers
    • Software
    • Data communications
    • Life sciences
    • Medical devices

Areas of Focus

  • All phases of patent, trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigation
  • E-discovery
  • International Trade Commission (ITC)
  • IP counseling and due diligence
  • Negotiated settlements
  • Patent reexamination
  • Trademark and false advertising
  • USPTO interference

Rankings & Recognitions

  • Recognized for excellence by the following:
    • American College of Trial Lawyers
    • Chambers USA
    • Benchmark Litigation
    • Super Lawyers
    • U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”

Sort by: Name  Title  Office

International Trade Commission

  • 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 Levin 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.
  • Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) – Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the former Silicon Graphics as complainant in the ITC, and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Cases were filed between late 2011 and early 2012, and all were resolved by the end of January 2013. The technology at issue relates to LCD panels, central processor units, graphics processing units, and other microprocessor technology. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space — Apple, LG, Research in Motion, Samsung, and Sony.
  • Certain Portable Communication Devices (337-TA-827) – Represented complainant in the ITC and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space — Amazon, LG, Motorola, Pantech Wireless, Research in Motion, Sony, and more. Cases were filed in December 2011 and settled in May 2012.
  • Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726) – Represented complainant in this three-patent ITC case. Filed in June 2010 against converged device manufacturers and focused on digital camera technology found in cell phones, laptop computers, and personal digital assistants, the matter was fully settled in April 2011. The result was successful licensing programs with three out of four respondents, among which are recognized leaders in the electronics device manufacturing space — HTC, LG, Research in Motion, and more.
  • Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-804) — Represented a California-based complainant (plaintiff) and its UK parent, companies that make LED lighting systems for use in film and TV production, at the International Trade Commission. The ITC handed down its Final Initial Determination of infringement on September 7, 2012. On January 17, 2013, the ITC issued a General Exclusion Order (GEO) against respondents (defendants) based in both China and the United States. The result in this case is particularly notable because it is rare for the ITC to issue a GEO. It is much more common for complainants to seek and receive a Limited Exclusion Order from the court due to the rigorous criteria and careful balancing of interests that apply to requests for GEOs.
  • Certain Electronic Devices, including Handheld, Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-667) – Represented complainant in three-patent ITC case and in parallel Federal District Court cases. Filed in December 2008, the cases were settled as to all respondents by May 2010 and resulted in successful licensing agreements with each, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space — HTC, Panasonic, Research in Motion, and more.
  • NMT Medical, Inc. et al. v. Cardia, Inc. (CAFC, D Minn. - 0:04cv4200) – Convinced the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse and remand a finding of no infringement against Cardia, a leading medical technology company. Then won summary judgment that the defendant’s septal occluder medical device infringed our client’s patent concerning the treatment of heart defects.

Federal District Courts

  • Virnetx v. Mitel Networks Corp., et al. (E.D. Tex. - 6:11cv18) – Defended our client, the US division of a Germany-based global manufacturing concern, in a patent infringement action relating to secure network communications. Filed in January 2011, favorable settlement was achieved for our client in February 2013. Virnetx had previously scored a $368 million verdict against Apple and a $105 million verdict against Microsoft (Microsoft later settled with Virnetx for $200 million).
  • EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v Skyguard LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex. - 6:11cv15) – Represented a defendant in this multi-patent infringement case relating to vending management communication modules. Filed in June 2011, case was settled very favorably after 18 months of litigation. EON, formerly known as TV Answers, Inc., holds more than three-dozen patents and has been fairly aggressive in its enforcement of a number of them. Among its targets have been some of the largest and most successful technology companies, including Apple, LG, Pantech, Honeywell, RIM, T-Mobile, and more. In some instances, EON has extracted high settlements from these organizations.
  • Alexander Orensthteyn v. Citrix (SD Fla - 0:02cv60478) – Won summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of patents asserted against a leading remote access provider. Also successfully defended these judgments on appeal to the Federal Circuit and convinced the District Court to enter sanctions against the patent owner and its counsel.
  • Enterasys Networks, Inc., v. Foundry Networks, LLC, et al. (D. Mass. - 1:05cv11298) – Represented plaintiff asserting four patents relating to networking technology (switches, LAN networking). Filed in 2005, action settled favorably in 2013 after Markman hearing and prior to trial.
  • Vtrax Technologies Licensing, Inc. v. Siemens Communications, Inc., et al. (S.D. Fl.- 9:10cv80369) – Successfully defended our client, the US division of a Germany-based global manufacturing concern, an insurance carrier, and a large national bank in a patent infringement action relating to unified communications and related technologies. Case filed in March 2010 against various enterprise systems; obtained dismissal of case for our clients in June 2011.
  • Ihance, Inc. v. Eloqua Limited, et al. (ED VA – 2:11cv257) – Convinced District Court to dismiss one of two asserted patents against defendant, a marketing automation SaaS company. This dismissal was quickly followed by a settlement of all remaining claims.
  • Ambato Media, LLC v. Clarion Co., Ltd, et al. (E.D. Tex. - 2:09cv242) – Represented Ambato asserting patents on methods of broadcasting location specific information for use in personal navigation and in dash navigation devices. Tried and won this case, which was settled after verdict and before appeal.
  • Akeva LLC v. Adidas-Salomon AG, et al. (ND NC – 1:03cv1207, CAFC) – Won summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of a worldwide athletic equipment company and then successfully defended that judgment on appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Clients We Serve

  • Biotechnology
  • Digital imaging and DSP
  • Medical devices
  • Microprocessors and electronics
  • Network hardware and SANs
  • Printing and imaging
  • Satellite and CATV systems
  • Semiconductor
  • Semiconductor manufacturing
  • Software
  • Telecommunications / wireless