Source: https://www.mintz.com/our-people/andrew-h-devoogd
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:49:57+00:00

Document:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas recently issued an interesting decision regarding the venue analysis for car companies selling into a particular jurisdiction. In Blitzsafe Texas v. BMW, Judge Gilstrap concluded that independently owned and operated BMW dealerships count as a regular and established place of business for purposes of establishing proper venue as to BMW of North America (“BMWNA”). (The court also concluded summarily that venue was proper as to BMWNA’s foreign parent company.) BMWNA argued in the main that the four dealerships located within the district were not their regular and established places of business because the dealerships are franchised. BMWNA also argued that it is not permitted to “own or control” the dealerships within the District pursuant to the Texas Occupations Code.
In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, the Southern District of New York recently held that an employee’s home office in New York constituted a “regular and established place of business” in the state as required by the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas recently held that venue was proper because Google exercises exclusive control over physical servers implicated by the litigation, as well as the physical space within which the server is located and maintained.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1400