professionalIMG

Andrew H. DeVoogd

Member vCard


Education

  • Northeastern University (JD)
  • Earlham College (BA)

Bar Admissions

  • Massachusetts
  • First Circuit Court of Appeals
  • United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Drew focuses his intellectual property practice in patent litigation, with an emphasis on Section 337 investigations in the International Trade Commission. An experienced patent litigator, Drew has participated in all phases of numerous high-stakes ITC investigations involving some of the largest technology companies in the world. He has been part of the strategy and trial team during multiple ITC evidentiary hearings, and has coordinated large litigation teams throughout ITC proceedings. Drew has also litigated patent infringement cases and other complex business disputes in federal district courts across the country.

In addition, Drew provides strategic counseling to help clients protect and leverage IP rights to maximize their value. Drew has participated in negotiating and closing numerous complex IP licensing and sale transactions, including elaborate multiparty agreements involving thousands of patents, as well as conducting pre-suit and transactional diligence relating to large portfolios of U.S. and foreign intellectual property assets. He also advises clients on trademark protection and related disputes.

Drew has worked in diverse technology areas such as embedded microprocessors, liquid crystal displays, graphics processors, consumer telecommunications systems, converged devices and related software and operating systems, mobile communications infrastructure, memory controllers, LED-based lighting systems, and biochemical assays.

Drew’s pro bono work includes representing a Jamaican national seeking political asylum due to violent persecution based on sexual orientation.

Prior to joining Mintz Levin, Drew practiced with a national law firm. Prior to that, he clerked for Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Barbara A. Lenk (then of the Massachusetts Appeals Court). In law school he served as a judicial intern to the late Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and as a legal intern with the Major Crimes Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, during which time he worked on multiple jury trials.

Representative Matters

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1044) Filed an ITC complaint on behalf of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). The patented technology covers graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets. Respondents include LG, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs. The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for early December 2017.

  • 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 Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) Represented owner 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 LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-804) Represented 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. After an evidentiary hearing, 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 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.
  • 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 went to trial in April 2011. The result was successful licenses with three out of four respondents, including recognized leaders in the electronics device manufacturing space.

Federal District Courts

  • Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. ASUS Computer International, Inc. et al. (D. Del. – 1:13-cv-864)
    Represented the former Silicon Graphics in numerous litigations against multinational electronics companies in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of novel graphics, microprocessor, and LCD patents. All of these cases settled favorably. In the ASUS matter, Mintz Levin persuaded the court to adopt the “stream-of-commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction despite conflicting precedent in the District of Delaware, and ASUS’s motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety.
  • The Coca-Cola Company v. Johanna Foods, Inc. (N.D. Ga. – 1:10cv3081) Represented a major regional chilled-beverage supplier in defending design patent and trade dress infringement allegations by an international beverage supplier regarding clear plastic PET product packaging in the Northern District of Georgia. Case settled favorably.
  • Japan Cash Machine Co. Ltd. et al v. MEI, Inc. (D.N.J. – 1:09cv351)  Represented a bill validator supplier adverse to its principal competitor in the Federal District of New Jersey and in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding patents directed to antifraud technology.
  • Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (D. Mass. – 4:10-cv-40124) Represented a clinical diagnostic testing supplier appealing a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to the Federal District of Massachusetts regarding the priority of invention of patent claims covering nucleic acid hybridization assays. Obtained reversal of adverse decision by the BPAI on behalf of client.