Peter is an experienced intellectual property litigator and trial attorney who represents clients in federal courts around the country, including US district courts and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as before the US International Trade Commission. Peter also represents clients in contested proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He handles patent infringement, validity, and other types of disputes for clients in a variety of sectors, including high technology related to electronics, e-commerce, medical technology, energy & sustainability, and financial services.
Peter's diverse litigation experience extends both in and out of the courtroom. He has served as both lead and co-counsel in front of juries at trial, advocated for clients at oral arguments and evidentiary hearings before Article III judges, deposed and defended the depositions of fact and expert witnesses, and managed teams that advance his clients' goals through strategic discovery.
The areas of technology in which Peter has particular experience include communications systems and networking, integrated circuits, semiconductor technology, electronics components, powerline networks, RFID, broadband applications for cable and satellite television systems, and internet applications and e-commerce. Peter has a degree in Electrical Engineering, summa cum laude.
Education
- Fordham University (JD)
- Rutgers University (BSEE)
Experience
Federal District Court
- Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp. et al. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 2:14-cv-06544-KAM (E.D.N.Y.) - Served as lead counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs in a 10-day jury trial concerning patent infringement, involving passive electronic components, in the Eastern District of New York. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, finding infringement of both asserted patents. Also represented the patent owner in simultaneous inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Shopify, Inc., 1:17-cv-00498-CFC (D. Del.) – Defended Shopify, an e-commerce company, against allegations of patent infringement brought on by DDR Holdings in Delaware district court. Successfully invalidated DDR's claims alleging infringement of three patents related to characteristics of e-commerce platforms in PTAB IPR proceedings, and then briefed and argued the issues before the Federal Circuit which affirmed the PTAB's invalidity findings. DDR subsequently agreed to dismissal with prejudice of the Delaware district court infringement proceedings against Shopify.
- Boom! Payments, Inc. v. Stripe, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-00590-VC (N.D. Cal.) - Defended an e-commerce company against allegations of infringement of three patents in the Northern District of California. The Court dismissed the action in its entirety following a motion to dismiss for lack of patent-eligible subject matter under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice decision. Also represented the defendant on appeal before the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the district court's dismissal, and in simultaneous covered business method review (“CBM”) proceedings before the PTAB.
- Wildcat Licensing WI LLC v. General Motors et al., 1:19-cv-00833-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00834-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00839-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00840-MN-JLH ,1:19-cv-00842-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00843-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00844-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00845-MN-JLH, 1:19-cv-00846-MN-JLH) (D. Del.)- Representing an owner of patents directed to assembly and fastening technologies against automotive manufacturers and suppliers in the District of Delaware. Also representing the patent owner in simultaneous IPR proceedings before the PTAB.
- Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 3:14-cv-02061-H-BGS (S.D. Cal.) - Defended an electrical components manufacturer in a patent infringement action in the Southern District of California and before the Federal Circuit. Also represented the defendant in simultaneous ex parte reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”).
- Canon Inc. v. Avigilon USA Corp. et al., (N.D. Tex., 3:18-cv-01317-K) - Defended a provider of networked video surveillance cameras, control devices, and associated software in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Texas. Also represented the defendant in simultaneous IPR proceedings before the PTAB.
- Axcess Int’l Inc. v. Savi Tech. Inc., 3:10-cv-1033-K (N.D. Tex.) - Defended an electronics manufacturer in a patent infringement action, involving RFID systems, in the Northern District of Texas and in simultaneous ex parte reexamination proceedings before the PTO. The Court dismissed the district court action after the PTO held the patent invalid.
- Connectsoft, Inc. v. NEEO, Inc., 2:16-cv-00548-JRG (E.D. Tex.) - Represented the defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas relating to radio frequency technology. The case was dismissed after the parties entered into a settlement agreement.
- Rentrop v. Spectranetics Corp., 04-cv-0101-PKC (S.D.N.Y.) - Represented owner and inventor of patents concerning excimer laser catheters in a patent infringement action in the Southern District of New York.
International Trade Commission
- Certain Semiconductor Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1177) - Represented the complainant GlobalFoundries before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in an investigation involving infringement of four patents related to semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, and products containing the same.
- Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-Ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software (337-TA-882) - Represented an owner of GPS and media sharing patents before the ITC.
- Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) - Represented the owner of a portfolio of communications and computing patents from the former enterprise communications business unit of a large multinational company, Enterprise System Technologies, S.A.R.L.
Recognition & Awards
- Included on the New York Super Lawyers: Rising Star – Intellectual Property list (2012 – 2019)
- Tau Beta Pi
- Eta Kappa Nu
- Golden Key Honors Society
Involvement
- Member, New York Intellectual Property Law Association
Recent Insights
Viewpoints
Prior Daubert Orders and Discovery Lessons Out of N.D. Cal.
February 4, 2022 |Blog
Mintz Rings in 2020 with Top 10 Recognition for ITC Practice
January 6, 2020 |Blog
News & Press
Fourteen Mintz attorneys have been named New York Super Lawyers for 2017 and thirteen have been named New York Rising Stars. New York Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers with the highest degree of peer recognition and professional achievements.
Events
Steve Akerley spoke on a panel entitled, "Litigation Finance in the Legal Department: In-House Perspectives" and Pete Snell moderated a panel entitled, "CIO Roundtable: Insights, Challenges & Opportunities," at the 2nd Annual Litigation Finance Dealmakers conference.
Pete Snell spoke on a panel titled "Beyond the Case: Evolving Legal Finance Models" at the Inaugural Litigation Finance Dealmakers conference.
Viewpoints
Sales Projections and a “Litigation Risk Multiplier” Are Fair Game When Assessing Reasonable Royalty Damages
April 29, 2022 | Blog | By Peter Snell, Meena Seralathan
Prior Daubert Orders and Discovery Lessons Out of N.D. Cal.
February 4, 2022 | Blog | By Peter Snell, Robert Sweeney
A recent order from the Northern District of California in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., No. 19-cv-06593 (Jan. 27, 2022) (“Edwards”), provides guidance regarding the ability (or inability) to use a prior Daubert ruling to discredit an expert witness at trial when such a ruling arose within the context of a different case. In addition, the order highlights a pitfall that can arise when an opposing party produces deficient damages-related discovery but is not pressed to supplement its discovery through a motion to compel.
Read more
Mintz Rings in 2020 with Top 10 Recognition for ITC Practice
January 6, 2020 | Blog
Mintz is recognized as among the top ten firms in ITC Section 337 litigation by Patexia in its inaugural "ITC Intelligence Report". We are pleased to be among the firms included in this publication and thrilled that it has come on the heels of a great year at the ITC for the Mintz team.
Read more
Year in Review: The Most Popular IP Posts of 2019
January 6, 2020 | Blog | By Christina Sperry
As 2020 begins and intellectual property (IP) strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2019. According to many readers, hot topics included § 112 written description, prosecution history estoppel, and venue in the wake of TC Heartland.
Read more
Collateral Estoppel Bars Assertion of Patent Claims That Do Not “Materially Alter the Question of Invalidity” Relative to Claims Invalidated in IPR Proceedings
April 10, 2019 | Blog | By Peter Snell
On April 4, 2019, Chief Judge Patti Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held in Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd. that a final determination of invalidity in inter partes review proceedings (“IPR”) collaterally estops the patent owner from asserting in district court another claim of the same patent that does not “materially alter the question of invalidity.” The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity as to that claim.
Read more
Supreme Court Holds AIA Did Not Alter the Settled Meaning of “On Sale”
January 22, 2019 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Peter Snell
Today the United States Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit and held that it remains the law under the America Invents Act (AIA) that a confidential sale to a third party can trigger the “on sale” bar to patentability.
Read more
Significant 2018 Patent Decisions and a Look Ahead
December 20, 2018 | Blog | By Peter Snell
This year the Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Federal District Courts penned a number of opinions impacting patent law. Here are some key takeaways from the past year.
Read more
Federal Circuit Denies RPX’s Request for en banc Review in Applications in Internet Time v. RPX
October 26, 2018 | Blog | By Peter Snell, Daniel Weinger
Continuing our coverage of the Federal Circuit’s Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp. (“Internet Time”) decision, on Tuesday, October 23, 2018, the Federal Circuit denied RPX’s request to rehear the case en banc. Internet Time held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must use a flexible approach when determining what entities constitute real parties in interest for the purpose of inter partes review (“IPR”). See Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336 (July 9, 2018) (“Internet Time”). Petitioners for IPR challenging a patent must identify all real parties in interest in their petition. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Director is not authorized to institute trial on the petition if the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner, was served with an infringement complaint for the patent in question more than one year before the petition’s filing. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
Read more
PTAB Finds Recycled Art and Advanced State of Parallel District Proceeding Warrant Denial of IPR Trial
September 17, 2018 | Blog | By Peter Snell, Daniel Weinger
Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) provided yet another arrow in the patent owner’s quiver for defending against institution of IPRs. In NHK International Corp. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-00752, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and denied institution because the asserted art was already considered during the original examination of the patent. The PTAB also found that denial was warranted under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in light of the additional factor that a district court trial on the same patent was imminent.
Read more
RPX Requests en banc Review in Applications in Internet Time v. RPX
September 13, 2018 | Blog | By Peter Snell, Daniel Weinger
On September 7, 2018, RPX Corporation (“RPX”) requested a rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit’s July 2018 Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp. decision, which held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must use a flexible approach when determining what entities constitute real parties in interest for the purpose of inter partes review (“IPR”).
Read more
News & Press
Fourteen Mintz attorneys have been named New York Super Lawyers for 2017 and thirteen have been named New York Rising Stars. New York Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers with the highest degree of peer recognition and professional achievements.
Sixteen Mintz attorneys have been named New York Super Lawyers for 2016 and twelve have been named New York Rising Stars. The list will be published in a special advertising supplement in The New York Times Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New York Super Lawyers - Metro Edition.
Thirteen attorneys from Mintz have been named New York Super Lawyers for 2014 and eleven have been named New York Rising Stars. The list will be published in a special advertising supplement in The New York Times Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New York Super Lawyers - Metro Edition.
Events
Speaker
Moderator
Sep
18
2019
The 2nd Annual LF Dealmakers Forum
The Apella, 450 East 29th Street, 2nd Floor, New York
Panelist
Sep
18
2018