Adam focuses his practice on high tech patent litigation in the International Trade Commission (ITC) and Federal District Courts, patent valuation, and strategic counseling. In addition to his legal training and graduate studies in electrical engineering, Adam’s practice is complemented by years of experience in the industry, in which he served as a principal engineer at BAE Systems before becoming a lawyer. He has handled various matters involving complex technology such as microprocessors, digital and RF circuitry, LCD display and LED lighting systems, microelectromechanical systems (MEMs), audio and video processing, semiconductor devices and manufacturing, and software.
In his role as a patent litigator, he has driven multiple ITC investigations to successful outcomes. Among other things, this involved managing interdisciplinary teams of technologists, expert witnesses, and litigators, coordinating complex discovery, examining witnesses, and oral argument at trial. Additionally, Adam served as the primary liaison in multiple German enforcement programs, where he worked closely with foreign counsel to develop the strategy for infringement and nullity proceedings.
Prior to joining Mintz, Adam worked with the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP.
Experience
International Trade Commission
- Certain Semiconductor Devices, Mobile Devices Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1336) – Represented patent owner Daedalus Prime in ITC investigation involving four patents related to semiconductor manufacturing processes used to make FINFET transistors. The case against Samsung was dismissed following a confidential license and settlement agreement. TSMC settled just prior to trial.
- 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 Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Digital Televisions Containing the Same; Inv. (337-TA-1318) – Represented Advanced Micro Devices as their lead counsel in an ITC investigation asserting AMD’s proprietary graphics processing unit (GPU) patents against TCL and Realtek Semiconductor. After a week-long trial, and multiple rounds of briefing to the ALJ and the Commission, the Commission found and upheld the ALJ’s initial determination that all respondents violated Section 337, and issued a limited exclusion order against both TCL and Realtek, as well as a cease-and-desist order against TCL. The limited exclusion order blocks TCL and Realtek from importing "certain graphics systems, components thereof, and digital televisions containing the same” that infringe AMD’s proprietary graphics IP.
- Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same (II) (337-TA-1297) - Represented DivX, a video codec company headquartered in San Diego, in enforcing patents before the ITC and in the District of Delaware against Respondent TCL. The asserted patents involve innovations relating to internet video and streaming media, and in the ITC action, Amazon has moved to participate as an Intervenor. These additional filings, in addition to the original filings, and related negotiations resulted in TCL and DivX signing an IP licensing agreement which resolved all pending litigations.
- Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same (337-TA-1222) – Represented DivX, a video codec company headquartered in San Diego, in enforcing patents before the ITC in the District of Delaware. The asserted patents involve innovations relating to digital rights management and streaming media. LG and Samsung settled after the Markman order was issued, leaving TCL as the sole remaining respondent. Shortly after the seven day evidentiary hearing held in July 2021, one of the two principal suppliers of the accused streaming technology to TCL, namely Roku, stepped in and took a license to DivX’s portfolio, thus partially resolving DivX’s claims against TCL. Prior to the court issuing a decision on the merits, DivX and TCL entered into a bilateral settlement agreement resolving DivX’s remaining claims against TCl and bringing an end to all pending litigation.
- Certain Semiconductor Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (II) (337-TA-1177) - Represented GlobalFoundries as lead counsel at the International Trade Commission and in multiple Western District of Texas actions, involving the direct and indirect infringement of four patents related to semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, and products containing the same. Additional defendants in these actions included Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, nVidia, Arista, Asus, and Lenovo. Within 2.5 months of filing at the ITC, the cases settled on favorable terms.
- Certain Semiconductor Devices, Integrated Circuits, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1149) – Mintz represented Innovative Foundry Technologies as part of a global enforcement strategy to protect 5 asserted patents relating to semiconductor fabrication and packaging. Respondents for the ITC matter included Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Qualcomm Incorporated, MediaTek, and Vizio. Cases were simultaneously filed in U.S. District Court and internationally in Germany and China. The investigation was instituted in March of 2019 and resolved favorably prior to the conclusion of discovery in August of 2019.
- Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1044) – Represented 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, Inc. (SDI). Achieved settlement with LG prior to the conclusion of expert discovery. Following the evidentiary hearing, the presiding ALJ issued an initial determination finding a violation of Section 337 and recommending the imposition of an exclusion order against the remaining Respondents’ accused products. The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s finding of a violation on August 22, 2018. As a result, the Commission issued orders banning the importation of products made by VIZIO, MediaTek, and SDI and cease and desist orders against VIZIO and SDI.
- Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) – Represented owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents, Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, 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, Enterprise System Technologies, S.A.R.L. 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 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 owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, 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 the complainant (plaintiff) that makes LED lighting systems for use in film and TV production, at the International Trade Commission. 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 due to the rigorous criteria and careful balancing of interests that apply to requests for GEOs.
Federal District Court
- Innovative Foundry Technologies LLC v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, et al., 6:19-cv-00719 (W.D. Tex) - Represented Plaintiff in enforcing 4 patents related to semiconductor manufacturing technology. The case proceeded through Markman hearing where claims were construed favorably in all four patents and a “not invalid” determination issue in response to an attempt to invalidate one patent entirely. All claims between IFT and SMIC have been confidentially settled.
- MEI, Inc. v. JCM American Corp., et al (DNJ 1:09-cv-351) – 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.
viewpoints
Federal Circuit Rejects Google’s Bid To Shrink ITC Jurisdiction over Post-Importation Acts of Indirect Infringement
September 12, 2024 | Blog | By David H. Hollander, Matthew Karambelas, Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s elimination of “Chevron deference” in the Loper decision, many commentators have suggested that the ITC’s authority over unfair imports under Section 337 might be curtailed.
Assessing the Impact of Recent Supreme Court Decisions on ITC Practice – Less than Meets the Eye?
July 17, 2024 | Blog | By David H. Hollander, Matthew Karambelas, Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk
Late last month, the Supreme Court issued two opinions which seemingly shook up the field of administrative law. As explained in this article, however, while both decisions bear significantly on certain administrative agencies, neither of these decisions are likely to present significant changes to Section 337 practice at the International Trade Commission.
When It Isn’t Better Late Than Never: ALJ Reins in on Redesigns First Disclosed in the Last Week of Fact Discovery
September 21, 2021 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Matthew Karambelas, Tianyi Tan
IPR and Fast-Moving District Court Litigation: PTAB Formalizes the Analysis for Balancing Efficiency and Fairness
July 17, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Daniel Weinger, Adam Rizk, Serge Subach
Shifting “Sands”: New Facts on the Ground Justify Institution of a Previously-Denied IPR
June 25, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Daniel Weinger, Serge Subach
Infringement Contentions: Fair Notice?
February 18, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Catherine Xu
Mintz Rings in 2020 with Top 10 Recognition for ITC Practice
January 6, 2020 | Blog
Efficacy of Preliminary Injunction Against Apple Called into Question
December 12, 2018 | Alert | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Robert Moore, Catherine Xu
Mintz Secures Victory for AMD at the ITC
April 17, 2018 | Alert | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk
AI: The Path of the Future or Industry Hype?
March 19, 2018 | Advisory | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk
News & Press
Mintz is pleased to announce that Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud and Members Matthew Galica, Frank Gerratana, Marguerite McConihe, Michael Newman, Adam Rizk, and James Wodarski have been named to the 2024 IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists list.
The Best Lawyers in America 2025 Recognizes 184 Mintz Attorneys across 56 Practice Areas
August 15, 2024
187 Mintz attorneys have been recognized by Best Lawyers® in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Notably, three Mintz attorneys received 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” awards, and 64 firm attorneys were included in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.
BOSTON- Mintz has once again been recognized as one of the most active and high-performing International Trade Commission (ITC) law firms in the Patexia 2024 ITC Intelligence Report.
BOSTON – Nine Intellectual Property attorneys from Mintz have been recognized in the 2024 edition of the Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Strategy 300 Global Leaders Guide.
Mintz is pleased to announce that Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud and Members Matthew Galica, Frank Gerratana, Marguerite McConihe, Michael Newman, Adam Rizk, Adam Samansky, Daniel Weinger, and James Wodarski have been named to the 2023 IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists list.
Mintz is pleased to announce that 120 firm attorneys have been recognized as leaders by Best Lawyers® in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©.
BOSTON – Mintz has been recognized as one of the most active and high-performing International Trade Commission (ITC) law firms in the Patexia 2023 ITC Intelligence Report.
BOSTON- Six attorneys from Mintz have been recognized in the 2023 edition of the Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Strategy 300 Global Leaders Guide.
Twenty-Eight Mintz Attorneys Named To Boston Magazine’s Top Lawyers List
November 22, 2022
In its second annual edition, 28 Mintz attorneys were named to Boston Magazine’s Top Lawyers list.
Six Mintz Attorneys Named To IAM Strategy 300 List Of Leading IP Strategists
September 09, 2022
Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property
August 19, 2022
Levelling the Playing Field in ITC Patent Cases by Identifying Redesigns to a Set Deadline
September 21, 2021
Samsung, LG Settle DivX Patent Fights Over Smart TVs
July 30, 2021
Mintz Promotes Eleven Attorneys to Member
May 10, 2019
Standard Essential Patent Equality in the ITC
November 1, 2016
SEPs At The ITC: Guidance From Recent Decision
October 6, 2016
Patent Co. Says Deal With Honda Ends Infotainment Probe
August 22, 2016
Mintz Helps Client Achieve Significant ITC Patent Victory
September 04, 2014
Events & Speaking
Recognition & Awards
Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch - Intellectual Property Law (2024 - 2025); Patent Law (2024 - 2025)
IAM Strategy 300: The World's Leading IP Strategists (2022 - 2024)
Ranked 16th by Patexia among the Most Active ITC Attorneys Representing Complainants and among the Most Active ITC Attorneys Overall (2024)
Ranked by Patexia among the Best Performing ITC Attorneys and ranked among the Best Performing ITC Attorneys Overall (2024)
IAM Strategy 300: Global Leaders (2023 - 2024)
Boston Magazine Top Lawyers – Intellectual Property (2022)