Brad Scheller is more than just a seasoned intellectual property litigator—he’s a strategic partner who thrives at the intersection of law, technology, and business. With a reputation for tackling complex trade secret and patent disputes, Brad brings a rare blend of technical insight and courtroom prowess, advocating for clients before judges and juries in United States district courts and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. His ability to distill intricate technological concepts into compelling stories and legal arguments makes him a sought-after advisor for companies navigating high-stakes intellectual property challenges both inside the courtroom and at the negotiating table.
Brad excels in developing creative and off-the-beaten-path strategies for both early-stage companies and established businesses, prioritizing each client’s unique story, technology, and motive to drive impactful results closely aligned with company business goals. A member of Mintz’s Trade Secrets and Sustainable Energy & Infrastructure practices, Brad has a particular passion for trade secret management and emerging technologies, with a strong focus on high-density electric vehicle batteries.
Outside of legal work, Brad channels his creativity as a bassist in original and cover bands across New York City and surrounding areas.
Experience
- Represented WePower Technologies in trade secret misappropriation litigation alleging theft of bankruptcy assets relating to energy harvesting technology and achieved favorable settlement. WePower Technologies LLC v. GenerEn, LLC, 7:22-cv-03364 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
- Zest Labs, Inc. et al. v. Walmart Inc. et al., Case No. 18-cv-00500 (E.D.Ark. 2025) representing Zest Labs in trade secret misappropriation dispute before Judge Moody in the Eastern District of Arkansas through jury trial.
- Represented Mullen Industries in federal district court and in defense of 12 inter partes review petitions against Apple. Defeated IPRs filed by Apple against four different patents and the case settled thereafter to avoid significant litigation expenditure. Mullen Industries, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00437 (N.D. Cal. 2022).
- Represented Kostopoulos Investment Holdings against patent infringement allegations with respect to shockwave therapy technologies; drove dispute to favorable settlement before initiation of claim construction proceedings. SoftWave Tissue Regeneration Technologies, LLC v. Dr. Har Hari S. Khalsa, DC, d/b/a Transformational Healing Universe, Thomas Kostopoulos, and Kostopoulos Investment Holdings, LLC d/b/a StemWave, Case No. 2:22-cv-07810-MCS-RAO (C.D.Cal. 2022).
- Represented Nanofiber Solutions against patent infringement allegations with respect to electrospun nanofiber wound-healing devices; drove case to favorable settlement following dispositive claim construction ruling in favor of Defendants. Acera Surgical, Inc. et al. v. Nanofiber Solutions, LLC et al., 1:20-cv-00980-CFC-JLH (D. Del. 2020).
- Represented Interactive Digital Solutions against patent infringement allegations with respect to patient monitoring systems; drove case to favorable settlement following disclosure of non-infringement positions and invalidity contentions. CareView Communications, Inc. v. Interactive Digital Solutions, LLC, No. 4:2021-cv-07061-HSG (N.D.Cal. 2021).
- Served as lead counsel on behalf of the defendant in direct-competitor, 2-patent infringement litigation involving aesthetic laser technology and successfully drove the parties’ disputes to settlement in eight months and prior to the start of expert discovery. Solta Medical, Inc. v. Lumenis, Inc. et al., No. 19-11600-DJC (D. Mass. 2019).
- Served as lead counsel for American Technical Ceramics and AVX Corporation in a 10-day jury patent trial concerning passive electronic components in the Eastern District of New York. The jury returned a verdict of infringement for plaintiffs. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp. et al. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 14-06544-KAM (E.D.N.Y. 2014).
- Represented owner of patents directed to assembly and fastening technologies against automotive manufacturers and suppliers in the District of Delaware. (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.)).
- Served as lead counsel in class action cases on behalf of Peter Thomas Roth Labs, LLC concerning false advertising allegations in the realm of cosmetics under various California, New York, Florida and Washington consumer laws. Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC at el. v. Miller et al., 19-698 (N.D. Cal.); Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC et al. v. Clair, 20-1220 (S.D.N.Y.)).
- Represented Intellectual Ventures II LLC in IPR proceedings concerning encapsulated stator motor technology (IPR2017-01537, IPR2017-01558).
- Lead counsel for complainant in Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-1052).
- Represented Patent Owners American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corporation in IPR proceedings concerning technology for multilayer capacitor structures (IPR2015-01330, IPR2015-01331).
- Represented Patent Owner Footbalance System Oy in IPR proceedings concerning shoe insoles (Petition denied in IPR2015-01770; all claims upheld in IPR2015-01769).
- Represented owner of electronic payment system patents in patent infringement litigation. MoneyCat v. PayPal, Inc., 14-2490 (N.D. Cal.).
- Represented and achieved successful settlement for video-game developer and manufacturer in four-patent infringement litigation concerning motion-controlled video gaming (Shinsedai Co. Ltd. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 11-2799 (S.D. Cal.)).
- Represented Jan Marini Skin Research Inc., Peter Thomas Roth, Inc., and Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC in a patent infringement case relating to certain hair growth products. Allergan, Inc. v. Photomedex, Inc., et al., 8:07-cv-01316 (CDCA 2009).
viewpoints
Patent Owner Tips for Avoiding IPR Institution
March 1, 2022 | Blog | By William Meunier , Michael Renaud, Brad M Scheller
Inter partes reviews have a very high institution rate. And worse, once instituted IPRs result in invalidated claims at an inordinately high rate. The best defense against an IPR petition is to convince the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to deny institution. In this post, the Mintz IPR team put together out top six tips for avoiding IPR institution.
Read more
Fintiv in Decline?
February 17, 2022 | Blog | By William Meunier , Brad M Scheller , Serge Subach
Going forward, parties litigating before the PTAB should consider the Fintiv factors comprehensively rather than zeroing-in on the procedural schedule in their parallel litigation. As the data suggests, an aggressive and fast-moving schedule alone may no longer result in a discretionary institution denial.
Read more
Written Description Requirement Challenges: Federal Circuit Decision Sheds Light on How Expert Testimony Can Help
January 21, 2022 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Meena Seralathan
Earlier this month, in Novartis Pharms. Corp., Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., et al., No. 2021-1070, the Federal Circuit issued a helpful decision concerning the not-often-discussed written description requirement. The panel specifically addressed whether sufficient written description can exist for claim limitations that are not explicitly or directly disclosed in the specification (including negative claim limitations). This new ruling provides patent owners with a useful guide for successfully navigating similar written description challenges in patent infringement cases. For example, Patent Owners seeking to combat written description requirement challenges should proffer expert witnesses who can clearly articulate how they understand the patent description in relation to the claims and what portions of that description support the same.
Read more
USPTO’s New Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response Pilot Program
January 21, 2022 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Meena Seralathan
Recently, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a notice informing the public that it will be implementing a pilot program (called the Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response Pilot Program, or the “DSMER Pilot Program”) to determine the value of allowing applicants to defer responding to 35 USC § 101 rejections (commonly known as “101 rejections” or “Alice rejections”). The Program is only available for certain applications, and certain procedures are required for participation; however, the Program has the potential to encourage more efficient patent prosecution. Below we answer some questions patent applicants are likely to have about the Program.
Read more
Entire Market Value Rule Strikes Again in WDTX
January 19, 2022 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Marguerite McConihe, Robert Sweeney
On January 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower granted a defendant’s motion to exclude an expert’s damages theory for violating the entire market value rule, reminding plaintiffs everywhere to use caution when applying the sales of an entire product as a royalty base.
Patent Owner Tips for Surviving an Instituted IPR: From Depositions to Sur-Replies
January 14, 2022 | Blog | By William Meunier , Michael Renaud, Brad M Scheller
As a Patent Owner in an instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR), there are dozens of considerations to bear in mind – from strategically approaching depositions and maximizing expert testimony, to drafting the final say in your sur-reply. We provide a summary of key takeaways from throughout the series and invite you to access all of our tips for more detail on Surviving an Instituted IPR.
Read more
Patent Owner Tip #19 for Surviving an Instituted IPR: Sur-Reply Strategies
October 25, 2021 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Courtney Herndon
In this final patent owner tip for surviving an instituted IPR we discuss sur-reply strategies. At this point, the Patent Owner has filed its Response, developed all the facts and evidence, and taken and defended expert depositions.
Read more
Patent Owner Tip #14 for Surviving an Instituted IPR: When Not to Amend Claims in an IPR
August 12, 2021 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Sean Casey
We look to those circumstances when a patent owner should think twice about amending, including when significant past damages exist, the current claims possess strong infringement reads and claim scope, petitioners are highly-motivated to fight and patent owner is cost sensitive.
Read more
Arthrex SCOTUS Ruling: The IPR Show Must Go On, Just with (a Bit) More Oversight
June 24, 2021 | Blog | By William Meunier , Brad M Scheller , Andrew DeVoogd
On Monday, in a highly-anticipated decision, a fractured Supreme Court issued its opinion in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, striking a portion of the America Invents Act (AIA) as unconstitutional—but providing an effectively toothless remedy.
Read more
PTAB Continues Streak of IPR Denials
June 14, 2021 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institution denials for inter partes review (“IPR”) and other post-grant review petitions have steadily risen from 13 percent in 2012 to 44 percent in 2020. In 2020, the institution rate has fallen to 56%, down from 63% a year ago.
Read more
News & Press
Mintz IP Partner Is Equal Parts BigLaw and Punk Rock
October 3, 2024
Law360 recently published a profile on IP litigator Brad Scheller and his active part in five New York-based rock bands.
PTAB Case Highlights Power Of Nonobviousness Arguments
April 24, 2020
Mintz Member Brad Scheller was quoted in an article published by Law360 on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s precedential decision in Lectrosonics Inc. v. Zaxcom Inc., which demonstrates that “secondary considerations” evidence of nonobviousness, including industry praise, can prove a successful strategy for saving a patent.
AIA Claim Construction Change To Spur Revamped Strategies
October 11, 2018
This feature story discusses on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) new final rule changing the claim construction standard for America Invents Act (AIA) reviews. Brad Scheller is among the intellectual property attorneys quoted providing commentary.
The Current State of IPR Estoppel
January 5, 2018
Mintz Members Kathleen Carr and Brad Scheller and Associate Inna Dahlin collaborated on an article for Bloomberg Law Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal about the inter partes review “estoppel” rule, what circumstances may give rise to it, and how the courts can clarify and validate its use.
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.
Mintz Partner Plays More Than One Tune
July 20, 2017
Brad Scheller, a Member of the Mintz New York office, is featured in an American Lawyer profile. The article discusses Brad’s intellectual property practice and his passion for music outside the office.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has announced it's launching an investigation into whether thermoplastic parts used in certain BMW, Honda, and Toyota vehicle models have infringed five patents owned by Intellectual Ventures LLC.
Cuozzo and Its Likely Impact
July 6, 2016
Mintz Member Brad Scheller, Associates Catherine Xu and Linyu Mitra, and Senior Patent Agent Gurneet Singh, authored this IP Frontline article discussing the U.S. Supreme Court case of Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, and its implications for patent practitioners.
Brad Scheller (Mintz): “The unitary patent will be devalued to an extent because of the UK exit”
June 28, 2016
Mintz Member Brad Scheller engaged in this in-depth Leaders League interview, providing commentary on the impact of the Brexit vote on the European Intellectual Property landscape, particularly as it pertains to the unitary patent and the United Patent Court.
Brad Scheller authored this IPFrontline article on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Opinion “invalidating all examined claims of a mortgage processing patent as unpatentable for failing to claim patent eligible subject matter.”
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 & Speaking
Jul
30
2025
Mintz x The Engine: Supercharging Your IP Strategy with Trade Secrets
The Engine, 750 Main St. Cambridge, MA 02139
Nov
14
2024
Guarding the Intangible: Trade Secrets as Catalysts For Valuation and Growth
Battery Forum Conference - Volta Foundation
Virtual
Speaker
Speaker
Recognition & Awards
Included on the New York Super Lawyers: Rising Stars - Intellectual Property Litigation list (2014 - 2018)
Recent Insights
Joint Development Agreements and Trade Secrets - Sweat the Small Stuff
April 23, 2025| Blog|
