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, argued on behalf of clients before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 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.

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 (D. Del.) – Defended Shopify against allegations of infringing multiple patents. Before filing suit against Shopify, patent owner DDR Holdings obtained the first Federal Circuit decision upholding the patent eligibility of computer-implemented technology after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. The Mintz team nevertheless achieved a full dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Shopify in September 2021 after successfully invalidating the asserted patent claims in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. On appeal from the IPR proceedings, Peter argued on Shopify’s behalf before the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Mullen Industries LLC v. Apple Inc., 6:22-cv-00145 (WDTX) and 5:23-cv-00437 (N.D. Cal.) – Served as lead counsel to patent owner in district court litigation against Apple Inc. and 12 related IPR proceedings. Cases settled in October 2023 after more than a year and a half of litigation and the PTAB’s issuance of decisions denying institution of IPRs as to several patents-in-suit.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips North America LLC (Philips) v. Intel Corporation, Dell, HP, Lenovo, MediaTek and Realtek, 1:20-cv-1240-1243, -1246, -1247 (D. Del.) – Representing Philips as patent owner in district court litigation, and in defending eight IPR petitions filed by TCL Communications and Intel Corporation. The PTAB denied institution to all five petitions filed by TCL and one of the three petitions filed by Intel. The PTAB instituted the remaining two Intel IPRs and ultimately upheld the validity of the subject patent in the PTAB’s Final Written Decisions. On appeal to the Federal Circuit from the IPR proceedings, Peter argued on Philips’ behalf and the Federal Circuit affirmed in February 2024.
Stylitics Inc. v. FindMine Inc., 1:22-cv-02983 (S.D.N.Y.) – Served as lead counsel in defending FindMine Inc. in patent litigation filed by a competitor related to personalized digital outfitting software for online retailers. In February 2023, Mintz filed a motion to dismiss on Alice and Section 101 grounds. Peter argued the motion before the Magistrate Judge, and thereafter the judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss. The matter then settled in December 2023 pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.
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.
Coretek Licensing, LLC v. Preply, Inc., 1-21-cv-01657 (D. Del.) - Represented defendant against allegations of patent infringement concerning methods of enabling a network connection. Obtained dismissal of the complaint on behalf of our client within a few months of the complaint’s filing.
Gamehancement LLC v. Verimatrix, Inc., 1:24-cv-00221 (D. Del.) - Defended a cybersecurity company in obtaining early dismissal of patent infringement claims related to multi-layer copy protection schemes.
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 Integrated Circuits, Mobile Devices Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1335) - Represented Daedalus Prime against Samsung Electronics and Qualcomm Corporation in ITC investigation involving four patents related to power management techniques in computer processors. The case against Samsung was dismissed following a confidential license and settlement agreement. Evidentiary hearing involving the remaining parties was held in August 2023 and ultimately settled before a final decision on the merits.
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. An ITC investigation was instituted as to respondent entities Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and HTC Corporation. Google participated as an intervenor. The investigation resolved prior to the evidentiary hearing.

Read less

Sales Projections and a “Litigation Risk Multiplier” Are Fair Game When Assessing Reasonable Royalty Damages

April 29, 2022 | Blog | By Peter Snell, Meena Seralathan

A recent decision from Judge Stark, now presiding at the Federal Circuit, endorses the use, by a patent owner’s damages expert, of sales projections and a “litigation risk multiplier” in determining reasonably royalty damages. In the decision, Judge Stark confirmed that a damages expert may rely on such evidence notwithstanding defendants’ Daubert challenges to the contrary.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 less

How the Patent System May Look after Trump's Return

November 06, 2024

Member Peter Snell was quoted by Law360 on changes the patent system may experience following Trump's return to office.

Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Apple, Too, Should Expect the Expected in Appealing Its ITC Loss to the CAFC

May 16, 2024|

Ruling May Spur New Patent Venue Rows Over Remote Work

November 03, 2022

Mintz Member Peter Snell was quoted in a Law360 article on the mandamus petition from Monolithic Power Systems seeking to dismiss a patent case against the chipmaker brought by energy company Bel Fuse for improper venue.

Peter F. Snell

Member

New York

Experience

viewpoints

News & Press

Events & Speaking

Recognition & Awards

Involvement

Offices

Admissions

Related Industries

Related Practices

Education

Recent Insights

May 16, 2024|

Peter F. Snell

Member