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.