Ping Hu

Associate vCard


  • Suffolk University Law School (JD, summa cum laude)
  • Dartmouth College (MS, Physical Chemistry)
  • Fudan University (BS, Polymer Science and Engineering, Distinguished Graduate with Highest Honor)

Bar Admissions

  • Massachusetts
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office


  • Mandarin

Ping’s practice focuses on patent litigation and arbitration, IP transactions and due diligence, patent prosecution, and post-grant proceedings before USPTO.  He counsels clients in diverse technology areas including electronic devices, medical technology and devices, mechanical devices, computer/network software and hardware, security software and systems, communication systems, mobile devices and applications, e-commerce applications and services, financial applications and services, business methods, and composite/polymer materials, among others.

Ping’s patent litigation and arbitration experience concentrates in the U.S. and extends internationally. He performs infringement/non-infringement and validity/invalidity analysis, authors briefs on claim construction and other subjects, manages all phases of discovery, and participates in hearings and trials. 

Ping’s IP transactional and due diligence experience includes handling license disputes, analyzing IP portfolios for ownership, risk, and value in M&A transactions, and preparing freedom to operate, patentability, validity/invalidity, and infringement/non-infringement opinions.

Ping also prepares and prosecutes US and international patent applications and conducts patent post-grant proceedings before the USPTO.

Ping was a Technology Specialist then an Associate with Mintz Levin for several years before practicing as a Senior Associate with another international law firm. Ping rejoined Mintz Levin in 2014. Prior to his legal career, Ping worked as a software engineer with Polycom, Inc., where he designed and developed audio/video conference systems and applications.

Representative Matters

Federal District Courts

  • Yahoo Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal. - 3:12-cv-01212-JSW) – Defended Facebook in patent litigation related to various Internet and social media technologies
  • Broadcom Corp. v. NXP Semiconductors, NV, et al. (C.D. Cal. - 8:13-cv-00829-MRP) – Defended Broadcom in patent litigation related to Near Field Communications (NFC) technologies
  • Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. Research in Motion Ltd., et al. (S.D.N.Y. - 1:11-cv-8908-CM) – Defended Research in Motion (BlackBerry) in patent litigation related to video codec technologies
  • U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC. v. Acer, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal. - 4:10-cv-03724-CW) –Defended Broadcom Corporation in patent litigation related to Ethernet technology
  • Ericsson Inc. et al. v. D-Link Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex. - 6:10-cv-00473-LED) – Defended Broadcom Corporation in patent litigation related to various network technologies
  • Potter Voice Technologies LLC, v. Apple, Inc., et al. (D. Colorado - 12-CV-01096-REB-CBS) – Defended Research in Motion (BlackBerry) in voice recognition technologies
  • Locata LBS LLC v. Factual Inc. (C.D. Cal. - 2:13-cv-07743-JAK-SH) – Defended Factual in patent litigation related to GPS technologies
  • Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Vlingo Corp. (D. Mass. - 1:09-cv-11414) & (D. Del. - 1:09-cv-00585) – Defended Vlingo Corporation in patent litigation related to voice recognition technologies
  • ATMI Packaging, Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., et al. (D. Mass. - 1:10-cv-11247) –Represented ATMI in patent litigation related to bio-reactors and mixing devices
  • Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Troy Industries, Inc. (D. Mass. - 1:10-cv-10761) –Represented Atlantic Research Marketing Systems in patent litigation related to weapon accessories
  • Ambato Media, LLC. v. Clarion Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. - 2:09-cv-242) – Represented Ambato Media in patent litigation related to location-based service on navigation devices
  • Lumenis Ltd. et al. v. Alma Lasers Ltd. et al. (N.D. Ill. - 1:07-cv-03622)  – Represented Lumenis in patent litigation related to laser and pulsed light medical devices
  • Phoenix Technologies Ltd. v. DeviceVM (N.D. Cal. - 3:10-cv-00514) – Represented Phoenix Technologies in patent litigation related to computer firmware
  • Liquidnet Holdings, Inc. v. Pulse Trading, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. - 1:07-cv-06886) – Defended Pulse Trading in patent litigation related to block trading technologies
  • Uniloc USA, Inc., et al v. Microsoft Corp. (D.R.I. - 1:03-cv-00440) – Represented Uniloc in patent litigation related to anti-piracy software technologies
  • Mangosoft IP v. Skype Technologies, SA, et al (E.D. Tex. - 2:06-cv-00390) – Represented Mangosoft in patent litigation related to peer-to-peer networking software
  • DuFresne v. Microsoft Corporation, et al (D. Mass. - 1:02-cv-11778) – Represented DuFresne in patent litigation related to dynamic webpage technologies
  • CVS Corporation v. Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (C.D. Cal. - CV 07-3002-RGK) – Defended CVS in patent litigation related to automated call processing technologies

International Trade Commission

  • 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.


  • FlashPoint Technology, Inc. v. Vivitar Corp. (AAA - 11 133 Y 02123 06) – Represented FlashPoint in patent infringement arbitration related to digital photography software and devices

Professional & Community Involvement

  • Member, Boston Bar Association
  • Member, Boston Patent Law Association
  • Member, American Bar Association