professionalIMG

Andrew H. DeVoogd

Member vCard


Education

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

Bar Admissions

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

Drew is an experienced patent litigator and trial attorney. He focuses his intellectual property practice in patent litigation, licensing and strategic counseling, with a litigation focus on Section 337 unfair trade and import investigations at the International Trade Commission. Drew has participated in all phases of numerous ITC investigations involving some of the largest technology companies in the world. He has first-chair experience in multiple ITC evidentiary hearings, and regularly leads large litigation teams throughout all stages of ITC proceedings. Drew also represents clients in patent infringement cases in federal district courts across the country. As part of a comprehensive and global approach to patent licensing and enforcement, Drew also assists clients in coordinating foreign patent enforcement activity.

In addition to litigation, Drew provides strategic counseling to help clients protect and leverage IP rights to maximize their value, including in licensing and sale transactions. He has participated in negotiating and closing numerous complex IP-related agreements, including multiparty transactions involving thousands of U.S. and foreign patents, and has coordinated related transactional diligence.

Drew litigates and advises clients 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, DDR4-compliant memory modules, memory controllers, LED-based lighting systems, electric motor systems, and biochemical assays.

Drew is a member of the firm's Pro Bono Committee.  His own pro bono work includes representing a Jamaican national seeking political asylum due to violent persecution based on sexual orientation, and representing clients of the Mintz Levin Domestic Violence Program in obtaining and extending 209A abuse prevention orders on behalf of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Prior to joining Mintz Levin, Drew practiced with a national law firm. Before 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 civil and criminal jury trials.

Representative Matters

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-1089) 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 November 2018.
  • 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 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 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.  

Pro Bono 

  • AIDS Support Group of Cape Cod, Inc. v. Town of Barnstable & Others, 477 Mass. 296 (2017) Co-authored an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of approximately 30 public health-related amici, including some of the largest hospital systems and health insurers in Massachusetts. In a case of first impression, the unanimous SJC agreed with the plaintiff and the amici that there is no restriction in the law on privately-run hypodermic needle access programs, which are designed to limit the spread of blood-borne diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C.