• Georgetown University (JD, with honors, 2000)
  • Harvard College (BA, Government, with honors, 1997)

Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Virginia

Aarti focuses her practice on patent litigation and has extensive experience as trial counsel, having served in the US International Trade Commission (ITC) as a senior investigative attorney prior to joining Mintz Levin. During her tenure at the ITC’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations, she served as lead counsel for the federal government in seven trials and in over 25 ITC investigations, covering trade secrets, trademarks, and electrical, computer, mechanical, and chemical patents.  She particularly enjoys simplifying technology for judges and juries, devising creative and pragmatic strategies, and working closely with in-house counsel.

Prior to her work with the ITC, Aarti practiced as a patent litigator with an international law firm, where she handled district court litigations relating to computer, electrical, mechanical, and pharmaceutical technologies. She also handled appellate litigation before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and provided counsel on patent portfolios and infringement opinions.

Representative Matters

  • Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1044) Represent Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) as complainant in the ITC asserting patents covering graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets. Respondents include LG Electronics, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs. Achieved settlement with LG prior to the conclusion of expert discovery. After the evidentiary hearing in late 2017, the presiding ALJ issued an initial determination on April 16, 2018, finding a violation of Section 337 and recommending the imposition of an exclusion order against the remaining Respondents’ accused products.  

  • Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-1023) Represent Complainant Netlist, Inc., a California memory module company, in the ITC asserting six patents against the Korean-based memory giant SK hynix. The technology claimed by the asserted patents is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards, which are implemented by the accused imported products. The respondents are asserting novel RAND defenses in the ITC, and in a co-pending case involving the same patents in the District Court for the Central District of California. The ITC evidentiary hearing is scheduled for early May 2017, while the trial in the CDCA is scheduled for July of 2018.

  • Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) Represented owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents as Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of automotive manufacturers, and infotainment system and chip suppliers. Respondents include Honda, Toyota, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments, Renesas, Harman International, and Fujitsu-Ten. The investigation instituted in January of 2016 and resolved favorably prior to the conclusion of expert discovery in August of 2016.
  • 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 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 Hair Irons (337-TA-637) Lead government counsel in investigation involving the trademark and trade dress of the CHI™ hair iron which was resolved by summary determination motion, and the issuance of a General Exclusion Order. 
  • Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing Same (337-TA-692) Lead government counsel in patent infringement hearing involving Murata Manufacturing Corporation and Samsung regarding the structure of capacitors. 
  • Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Related Software (337-TA-717) Lead government counsel in patent infringement hearing involving Apple Inc. and Kodak relating to digital camera memory storage and power management. 
  • Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing Same (337-TA-739) Lead government counsel in patent infringement hearing and enforcement proceeding between Leviton Inc. and various foreign manufacturers of ground fault circuit interrupters, where a General Exclusion Order was issued. 
  • Certain Coenzyme Q10 Products and Methods of Making Same (337-TA-790) Lead government counsel in patent infringement hearing involving Kaneka Corporation and multiple Chinese and Japanese manufacturers regarding a method for the production of coenzyme Q10. 
  • Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (S. Ct.) Member of team which represented SMC in landmark Supreme Court case involving the doctrine of equivalents and rodless cylinders.
  • TV/COM Int’l v. MediaOne Corp. and Canal Plus Technologies S.A. (M.D. Fla.) represented Canal Plus Technologies against TV/COM Int’l in district court patent litigation involving multilayer encryption for broadcast.
  • SmithKline Beecham v. Sumika Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd. (E.D. Pa.) represented Sumika Fine Chemicals against SmithKline Beecham in district court litigation relating to the Paxil antidepressant.

Professional & Community Involvement

  • Executive Committee, ITC Trial Lawyers' Association
  • Member, Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court