Skip to main content

Andrew H. DeVoogd

Member

AHDeVoogd@mintz.com

+1.617.348.1611

Follow:
Share:

Drew is an experienced patent litigator and trial attorney whose work encompasses a broad range of technologies. He regularly represents clients in high stakes International Trade Commission investigations involving some of the world's largest technology companies. He also litigates patent matters and other business disputes in federal district courts around the country, and advises clients in complex IP licensing and related transactions. Drew excels at helping clients make sense of nuanced legal issues while developing effective strategies to protect and leverage their intellectual property. 

Drew focuses his intellectual property practice in patent litigation, with an emphasis on Section 337 investigations in the International Trade Commission. Drew has participated in all phases of numerous ITC investigations involving some of the largest technology companies in the world. He has first-chair trial and strategy experience during multiple ITC evidentiary hearings, and regularly leads large litigation teams through fast-paced ITC investigations. Drew has also litigated patent infringement and trade secret cases and other complex business disputes in federal district courts across the country.  He has successfully argued on behalf of his clients during multiple Markman claim construction hearings, as well as on all manner of discovery, pretrial, and other motions, before the ITC and federal district courts.

In addition, Drew provides strategic counseling to help clients protect and leverage IP rights to maximize their value. Drew has participated in negotiating and closing numerous complex IP licensing and sale transactions, including elaborate multiparty agreements involving thousands of patents, as well as conducting pre-suit and transactional diligence relating to large portfolios of U.S. and foreign intellectual property assets. He also advises clients on trademark protection and related disputes.

Drew has worked in diverse technology areas such as embedded microprocessors, liquid crystal displays, graphics processors, consumer telecommunications systems, converged devices and related software and operating systems, mobile communications infrastructure, DDR4-compliant memory modules and their components, memory controllers, LED-based lighting systems, thermoplastics, electrical motors, and biochemical assays.

Drew is a member of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee. His own pro bono work includes representing asylum-seekers, as well as clients of the Mintz Domestic Violence Program in obtaining and extending 209A abuse prevention orders on behalf of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, including on appeal.

Prior to joining Mintz, Drew practiced with a national law firm. Prior to that, he clerked for Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Barbara A. Lenk (then of the Massachusetts Appeals Court). In law school he served as a judicial intern to the late Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and as a legal intern with the Major Crimes Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, during which time he worked on multiple jury trials.

Education

  • Northeastern University (JD)
  • Earlham College (BA)

Experience

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-1089) Represent Complainant Netlist, Inc., a California memory module company, in the ITC asserting six patents against the Korean-based memory company, SK hynix. The technology claimed by the asserted patents is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards, which are implemented by the accused imported products. The respondents are asserting novel RAND defenses in the ITC, and in a co-pending case involving the same patents in the District Court for the Central District of California. The ITC evidentiary hearing is scheduled for July 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 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. 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.
  • Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726) - Represented complainant in three-patent ITC case. Filed in June 2010 against converged device manufacturers and focused on digital camera technology found in cell phones, laptop computers, and personal digital assistants, the matter went to trial in April 2011. The result was successful licenses with three out of four respondents, including recognized leaders in the electronics device manufacturing space.

Federal District Court

  • Netlist Inc. v. SK hynix Inc., et al. (CDCA 8:16-cv-1605; 8:17-cv-01030) - Represent plaintiff Netlist, Inc., a California memory module company, in asserting eight patents against the Korean-based memory company, SK hynix. The technology claimed by the asserted patents is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards, which are implemented by the accused products. The defendants are asserting novel RAND defenses, as well as in co-pending cases involving the same patents in the International Trade Commission.
  • Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. ASUS Computer International, Inc. et al. (D. Del. 1:13-cv-864) - Represented the former Silicon Graphics in numerous litigations against multinational electronics companies in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of novel graphics, microprocessor, and LCD patents. All of these cases settled favorably. In the ASUS matter, Mintz persuaded the court to adopt the “stream-of-commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction despite conflicting precedent in the District of Delaware, and ASUS’s motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety.
  • The Coca-Cola Company v. Johanna Foods, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 1:10-cv-3081) - Represented a major regional chilled-beverage supplier in defending design patent and trade dress infringement allegations by an international beverage supplier regarding clear plastic PET product packaging in the Northern District of Georgia. Case settled favorably.
  • Japan Cash Machine Co. Ltd. et al v. MEI, Inc. (D.N.J. 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.
  • Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (D. Mass. 4:10-cv-40124) - Represented a clinical diagnostic testing supplier appealing a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to the Federal District of Massachusetts regarding the priority of invention of patent claims covering nucleic acid hybridization assays. Obtained reversal of adverse decision by the BPAI on behalf of client.

Pro Bono

  • AIDS Support Group of Cape Cod, Inc. v. Town of Barnstable & Others, 477 Mass. 296 (2017) - Co-authored an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of approximately 30 public health-related amici, including some of the largest hospital systems and health insurers in Massachusetts. In a case of first impression, the unanimous SJC agreed with the plaintiff and the amici that there is no restriction in the law on privately-run hypodermic needle access programs, which are designed to limit the spread of blood-borne diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis C.
  • J.S. v. J.G., 94 Mass. App. Ct. 1104 (Oct. 5, 2018) – Led the briefing team and successfully argued before the Massachusetts Appeals Court in an appeal from the denial of client’s request for a c. 209A Order of Protection and No Contact against an abusive family member. The Appeals Court reversed the trial court’s decision on multiple grounds and remanded for a new trial

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Viewpoint
In a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued last week, the Board confirmed that the “enhanced estoppel” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) applies to co-pending inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings when a final written decision issues in a first IPR. The panel flatly rejected a Petitioner’s attempt to apply the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to those circumstances. 
Viewpoint
Recently, in a patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Michigan, Webasto Thermo & Comfort N. Am., Inc. v. BesTop, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-13456, Order No. 209 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2019) (Borman, J.), the court overruled defendant BesTop’s objections to the Special Master’s recommendation to grant plaintiff, Webasto’s, motion to strike BesTop’s second amended noninfringement and invalidity contentions.
Viewpoint General
On April 25, 2019, in Int’l Designs Corp., LLC, et. al. v. Hair Art Int’l, Inc., Judge George H. Wu in the Central District of California denied Hair Art’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.  Judge Wu concluded that, based on an analysis of the totality of the circumstances, “[t]his case was certainly ‘exceptional,’ but it was exceptional in that both parties made litigation choices leading to a significant waste of party and judicial resources.”  (Emphasis added.)
Viewpoint General

When Is Pre-Acquisition Analysis of Patents Protected from Discovery During Litigation?

March 29, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Rithika Kulathila

A Discovery Master in Limestone Memory Systems LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc. pending in the Central District of California recently provided additional guidance to practitioners and patent owners on this important question.  The report, issued on February 19, 2019, sustained in part the plaintiff Limestone’s privilege and work product assertions related to pre-acquisition analysis of the asserted patents conducted by Acacia, Limestone’s parent company.  In doing so, the report emphasized that courts have long held that attorney-client privilege may arise when a company obtains legal advice, while seeking to acquire patents, protecting from discovery communications between the acquiring company and inventors.  
Viewpoint General

Expert’s Lump-sum Damage Calculation is Not Inadmissible Because it Accounts for Future Sales of Potentially Non-accused Products

March 28, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Rithika Kulathila, Kara E. Grogan

A recent order from the District of Delaware in Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 15-00542 (“Evolved Wireless”) provides interesting guidance regarding the use of future sales in calculating lump-sum damages.
Viewpoint General
A recent order from the Northern District of California in AU Optronics Corporation America v. Vista Peak Ventures, LLC, 4:18-cv-04638 (CAND 2019-02-19) (“AU Optronics”),  provides further guidance for patent venue analysis post-TC Heartland.  Specifically, the order teaches that bringing a patent suit against only a foreign parent company while omitting its domestic subsidiary will likely not run afoul of TC Heartland’s seminal venue holding. 
Viewpoint General
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently issued a precedential opinion finding that a lower court had improperly incorporated an embodiment from the specification of the asserted patents into the claims.  In its decision, the CAFC reaffirmed longstanding claim construction law: the claims of a patent are interpreted in light of a specification, but not everything expressed in the specification must be read into all of the claims.
Viewpoint General

§102(b) Printed Publication: Unrestricted Distribution at a Trade Show

November 5, 2018 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Serge Subach

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion issued on November 1, 2018 clarifies the standard for a document to qualify as a “printed publication” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) and reversed an earlier Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision.1 Specifically, the requirement that a reference be “publicly available” is not as narrow as the PTAB had interpreted. The Court held that “the standard for public accessibility [of an alleged prior art reference] is one of reasonable diligence, to locate the information by interested members of the relevant public.”
Viewpoint General
A recent opinion from the Northern District of Texas is a reminder to all patent practitioners to heed pleading standards when drafting a complaint for patent infringement.  In Lexington Luminance LLC v. Service Lighting and Electrical Supplies, Inc. d/b/a 1000bulbs.com, 3-18-cv-01074 (TXND October 9, 2018, Order), the court denied the defendant, Service Lighting and Electrical Supplies, Inc. d/b/a 1000bulbs.com’s (“1000bulbs”) request to dismiss the case for failure to meet the pleading standard, but granted its alternative request for a more definite statement. The plaintiff, Lexington Luminance LLC (“Lexington Luminance”), is now required to provide a more detailed complaint. 
Viewpoint General

ALJ Cheney Holds that IPR Estoppel Does Not Apply to ITC Investigative Staff

October 18, 2018 | Blog | By Aarti Shah, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Chris Duerden

In an Initial Determination finding that Fujifilm violated Section 337 by infringing two patents held by Sony, ALJ Cheney found another patent invalid after ruling that inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel does not apply to the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) Office of Unfair Imports Investigations (“OUII”) Staff.  In Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, Investigation 337-TA-1058, ALJ Cheney remarked that even if IPR estoppel prevents a respondent from raising certain references during an investigation before the ITC, IPR estoppel does not prevent Staff from raising those same references to invalidate a patent where Staff was not a party to the IPR.  Id. at 106-07.

News & Press

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.
In this column, Mintz attorneys James Wodarski, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, and Matthew Karambelas analyze the decision made by the ITC about patent claims that have been negated by Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International in the 100-Day Pilot Program.
This Law360 feature article notes Honda’s removal from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s investigation into several foreign automakers’ “importation of vehicles with infotainment systems that allegedly infringed several patents.”