Skip to main content

Andrew H. DeVoogd

Member

AHDeVoogd@mintz.com

+1.617.348.1611

Follow:
Share:

Drew represents sophisticated clients in solving complex problems at the intersection of intellectual property, business, and international trade, often in high-stakes IP litigation. A trusted advisor, unwavering advocate, and steady courtroom voice, Drew excels at helping clients make sense of nuanced legal issues while developing and driving successful strategies to protect and leverage intellectual property, or to defend against accusations of infringement or misappropriation.

An experienced litigator and trial attorney, Drew focuses his practice in patent litigation, with an emphasis on Section 337 investigations before the International Trade Commission (ITC). He regularly leads large teams of lawyers and experts through all phases of fast-paced IP litigation at the ITC, in federal district courts around the country, and in alternative dispute resolution settings, including in patent cases involving standard-essential patent claims. Comfortable on his feet, Drew has extensive first chair courtroom experience, including during numerous ITC trials, patent claim construction hearings, and motion hearings.

Drew also advises clients on intellectual property licensing, purchases, and sales. He has participated in negotiating and closing numerous patent-focused deals, including multiparty settlement, licensing, purchase, and sale agreements, some involving thousands of assets.

Working in diverse industries and technology areas at all levels of the supply chain, Drew has experience with embedded microprocessors, liquid crystal displays, graphics processors, memory controllers, consumer telecommunications systems, converged devices and related software and operating systems, mobile communications infrastructure, voice-recognition, JEDEC-compliant memory systems, Digital Rights Management, LEDs, carbon fiber bicycle components, and thermoplastics.

The recipient of the 2020 Richard Mintz Pro Bono Award, Drew is a member of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee. He has an active pro bono practice and represents, among others, asylum-seekers and victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, including at the appellate level. At the U.S. Supreme Court, Drew led an amicus briefing team on behalf of Aimee Stephens, one of the employee plaintiffs in the landmark Title VII case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (June 15, 2020).

Prior to joining Mintz, Drew practiced with a national law firm and, before private practice, clerked for Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Barbara A. Lenk (then of the Massachusetts Appeals Court). During law school, he worked on multiple civil and criminal federal jury trials in the District of Massachusetts, both during his time as a legal intern for the Major Crimes Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and as a law clerk for the late Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.

Drew represents sophisticated clients in solving complex problems at the intersection of intellectual property, business, and international trade, often in high-stakes IP litigation. A trusted advisor, unwavering advocate, and steady courtroom voice, Drew excels at helping clients make sense of nuanced legal issues while developing and driving successful strategies to protect and leverage intellectual property, or to defend against accusations of infringement or misappropriation.

Experience

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Flocked Swabs, Products Containing Flocked Swabs, And Methods of Using Same (337-TA-1279) - Representing Copan Italia and Copan Industries as complainants in the International Trade Commission, asserting patent infringement claims against global competitors in a case involving the use of flocking technology (common in the textile industry) in the production of biological specimen collection swabs. Evidentiary hearing is scheduled for June 2022.
  • 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.
  • 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

  • Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., 6:19-cv-432-ADA (lead case) (W.D. Tex.) – Represented plaintiff Parus asserting two voice controlled information retrieval patents against consolidated defendants Apple (Siri), Google (Google Assistant), Amazon.com (Alexa), Samsung (Bixby), and LG in the Western District of Texas.
  • Netlist Inc. v. SK hynix Inc., et al., 6:20-cv-194, 6:20-cv-525 (W.D. Tex.) – Represented Netlist, Inc. in asserting multiple patents essential to JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards against the Korean-based memory company SK hynix in the Western District of Texas. The WDTX case was the capstone of a years-long representation of Netlist adverse to SK hynix, across two ITC Investigations, two cases in the Central District of California, multiple IPRs before the PTAB, and multiple trips to the Federal Circuit. Successfully persuaded the Federal Circuit on mandamus that Judge Albright in WDTX did not err in denying SK hynix’s motion to transfer the case to California, and ran the table on all disputed claim terms at Markman. These successes leveraged a global settlement for Netlist, including a $40 million license payment and a supply commitment from SK hynix worth $600 million in preferred access to DRAM components in a constrained market.
  • CellInfo, LLC v. American Tower Corporation, et al., (D. Mass., 1:18-cv-11250) – Defended American Tower Corporation in a software trade secret action in federal district court and in confidential arbitration.
  • CloudConnect, LLC et al v. GraVoc Associates, Inc., 1:18-cv-10736 (D.Mass) – Lead counsel for plaintiff in trade secret litigation asserting nine counts of federal and state trade secret theft, unfair competition, and other claims, seeking declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctions, statutory and enhanced damages, and the return or destruction of clients’ stolen confidential information. Achieved extremely favorable and early settlement, resolving all claims.
  • Netlist Inc. v. SK hynix Inc., et al. (CDCA 8:16-cv-01605; 8:17-cv-01030) - Represented 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.
  • 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

  • Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (June 15, 2020) – In landmark Supreme Court case, led amicus briefing team on behalf of nearly 40 Law & History Professors in support of employee Aimee Stephens, fired due to her transgender status. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
  • AIDS Support Group of Cape Cod, Inc. v. Town of Barnstable & Others, 477 Mass. 296 (2017) - Led amicus briefing team before 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 support of privately-run hypodermic needle access programs. In a case of first impression, the unanimous court agreed that the law does not prohibit such programs, which support the public health and welfare by helping 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 vacated the trial court’s decision on multiple grounds and remanded for a new trial.
Read less

viewpoints

Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

SCOTUS Declines to Answer Calls for Clarification in American Axle v. Neapco

July 13, 2022 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Andrew DeVoogd, Matthew Karambelas, Amanda Metell

Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
In two recent decisions, both issued on February 4, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “CAFC”) erased two huge patent damages awards because the underlying expert opinion on damages was untethered to the specific facts of each case.
Read more
Dr. Stephen Thaler, the architect of the artificial intelligence system known as DABUS, the first AI system to be named as an inventor on a patent, joins Professor Ryan Abbott of the Artificial Inventor Project, and Mintz IP attorney Drew DeVoogd for this episode of the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property podcast.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Invalidity of Terminal Patents Not Tied to Disclaimed Patent-in-Suit’s Expiration

October 6, 2021 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Courtney Herndon

In an interesting recent case of first impression, Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas denied a motion for judgement on the pleadings filed by Defendants Google and YouTube because the asserted patent was terminally disclaimed to two other patents that had been invalidated prior to its issuance. In VideoShare, LLC v. Google, LLC, 6:19-cv-663 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2021) (Albright, J.), the Court rejected the argument that the invalidation of the terminal patents was the “expiration” of the terminal patents, and that the asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,362,341 (“the ’341 patent”) was therefore also necessarily expired because it allegedly shares the expiration date of the terminal patents. Judge Albright concluded that, to the contrary, the prior finding of invalidity of the terminal patents had no impact on the expiry of the terminally-disclaimed ’341 patent.
Read more
In Part II of this damages-focused series of the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property podcast, Mintz IP attorneys Drew DeVoogd and Daniel Weinger join guest David Duski of BDO for a more detailed discussion of apportionment of damages in patent litigation.
Read more
In this episode of the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property podcast, Mintz IP attorneys Drew DeVoogd and Daniel Weinger welcome guest David Duski for the first of a two-part series covering patent trial damages.
Read more
In this episode of the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property podcast, attorneys Drew DeVoogd and Dan Weinger break down the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Arthrex, where the Court found that Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are hired in violation of the Appointments Clause, and crafted a new structure for the PTAB.  The Arthrex case has far reaching implications not just in patent law, but across the administrative bodies of the federal government.
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
A PhD-holding patent prosecutor and a seasoned ITC and district court litigator talk claim construction. Can they possibly find common ground?
Read more

EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property — Basics of ITC Litigation

May 6, 2021 | Podcast | By Daniel Weinger, Andrew DeVoogd

Intellectual property rights protect your innovations and competitive position in the market.
Read more
Read less

News & Press

News Thumbnail
On an NBC Boston news segment, Mintz Member Drew DeVoogd discussed the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 15 decision in the consolidated cases captioned Bostock v. Clayton County, which ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
News Thumbnail
Mintz Member Andrew DeVoogd was quoted in an article published by Bloomberg Law on how an increase in telework to reduce the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) could engender new technological habits among attorneys that change how law is practiced.
News Thumbnail
Mintz Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud and Members James Wodarski and Andrew DeVoogd co-authored an article published in the February 2020 issue of The Licensing Journal that examined opportunities for remedies including injunctive relief as redress against infringement for standard essential patent (SEP) owners at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
News Thumbnail
The October 29 edition of the Skilled in the Art newsletter published by Law.com reported that Mintz achieved a favorable Notice of Initial Determination at the U.S. International Trade Commission on behalf of the firm’s client Netlist, Inc., a California-based technology company focused on developing innovative server memory module products, including technology that is essential to certain JEDEC memory standards. Significantly, this is the first time since 2013 that a Section 337 violation has been found based on a standard-essential patent.
News Thumbnail
Law360 reported that a U.S. International Trade Commission judge ruled that Korean manufacturer SK Hynix infringed on California-based technology company, and Mintz client, Netlist, Inc.’s standard essential patent related to server memory modules.

The article noted that the Mintz team representing Netlist includes Member and Chair of the Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud, along with Members James Wodarski, Drew DeVoogd, Steve Akerley, Aarti Shah, and Associates Kristina Cary, Matthew Galica, and Tiffany Knapp.
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.
News Thumbnail
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.”
Read less

Andrew H. DeVoogd

Member

Boston