Brad is a partner in the New York office of Mintz specializing in intellectual property litigation and representing clients before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and in United States federal district and appellate courts. He serves as lead counsel before judges and juries in United States district courts, the International Trade Commission and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
In addition to his litigation practice, Brad serves as a strategic counselor to start-up ventures and established businesses in the mechanical and electrical arts, with a deep interest and focus in high-density EV battery technologies and trade secret registration, management and protection.
Brad is a Member of the Firm’s Energy & Sustainability Practice with a focus on representing EV battery companies on all aspects of intellectual property, licensing and technology growth, management and protection.
Brad is also co-editor of Mintz’ intellectual property writing program and, in his spare time, plays upright and electric bass in several original and cover bands in New York City and surrounding areas.
Experience
- 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 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).
- 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
Federal Circuit Clarifies the On-Sale Bar under AIA
May 9, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
Last week the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals clarified the scope of the on-sale bar rule under the America Invents Act (AIA). The on-sale bar in general means that a sale or an offer to sale of an invention more than one year prior to the effective filing date of a patent qualifies as prior art.
Read more
Federal Circuit Rejects Board’s Understanding of Prior Art
April 28, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Catherine Xu
The Federal Circuit has now reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc. finding claims 1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 6,567,967 (the “‘967 patent”) as being “not supported by substantial evidence.”
Read more
Federal Circuit to PTAB: No Short Cuts Allowed
April 25, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
Today, the Federal Circuit, vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination regarding a Securus Technologies patent directed to systems and methods for reviewing conversation data for certain events and bookmarking portions of the recording when something of interest is said, finding that the Board failed to provide any explanation for its decision with respect to certain challenged claims.
Read more
Federal Circuit Limits Claim to Single Embodiment Because Only Enabling Description Provided in the Patent
April 12, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Anthony Faillaci
On April 6, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court’s judgment of infringement and summary judgment for non-infringement of The Medicines Company’s (“MedCo”) patents-in-suit.
Read more
Supreme Court Shuts the Door on Patent Laches
March 21, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
In a widely anticipated move with implications for patent litigation across the country, the Supreme Court ruled today that the equitable defense of laches is not available to limit damages in patent infringement cases subject to the six-year damages limitation of 35 U.S.C. § 286.
Read more
Federal Circuit Reminds PTAB to Explain its Reasoning
March 1, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) has more recently been indicating to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) the importance of explaining its reasoning when invalidating patent claims.
Read more
The Defend Trade Secrets Act: Securing Your Trade Secrets in 2017 LIVE Webcast
February 17, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Christina Sperry
As regular readers of this blog will know, our cross-disciplinary Trade Secrets team has been closely monitoring the development of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).
Read more
IP Cases to Watch in 2017
January 12, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best. Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least different.
Read more
ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.: A Reminder Of Obviousness Analysis Under KSR
January 6, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller , Anthony Faillaci
In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which invalidated several claims of ClassCo’s US Patent No. 6,970,695 (“the ’695 patent”) that discussed caller ID technology that would verbally announce the name of an incoming caller before the call is connected.
Read more
NHL’s Vegas Golden Knights’ Trademark Application Refused Due To Likelihood of Confusion with the College of Saint Rose Golden Knights
December 21, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller
In June 2016, the National Hockey League (NHL) announced that Las Vegas would be awarded an NHL franchise team, the first major professional sports team in the city and the first new expansion team for the NHL in over fifteen years.
Read more
News & Press
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
Recognition & Awards
Included on the New York Super Lawyers: Rising Stars - Intellectual Property Litigation list (2014 - 2018)
