Biography

Education

JD, Georgetown University Law Center, 2001
AB, Princeton University, 1998

Admissions

District of Columbia
Massachusetts
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Representative Experience

• Lead counsel for defendant, a leading computer, mobile device and media player company, in a patent infringement action filed in the Northern District of California involving two patents relating to speaker design (Case No. 3:13-CV-01161-JSW) and in related inter partes review proceedings. In February 2017, the Federal Circuit ruled in her client’s favor on all issues arising out of the inter partes review (Case No. 15-2038), and in March 2018, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on two independent grounds. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment decision in September 2019.
• Co-lead counsel for respondent/defendant—at leading computer, mobile device and media player company— in co-pending ITC, federal district court, foreign patent infringement proceedings, and IPRs.  Co-chaired three trials in June 2018, September 2018, and March 2019. (ITC Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1065, 337-TA-1093, Civil Action Nos. 3:17-CV-1375-DMS-MDD, 3:17-CV-02398-DMS-MDD, others.)
• Counsel for defendant, the leading US processor company, in a patent infringement action filed in the District of Arizona involving four patents (Case No. 2:16-cv-02026-DGC). Following a favorable Markman ruling, the plaintiff stipulated to non-infringement.
• Co-lead counsel for respondents, four leading US processor and computer companies, in a Section 337 investigation involving one patent before the International Trade Commission (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1024). Achieved a significant victory when the Administrative Law Judge found non-infringement of all asserted claims on summary determination.
• Co-lead counsel for respondent, the leading computer, mobile device and media player company, in two Section 337 investigation involving eight patents before the International Trade Commission (ITC Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1038, -1039). The cases resolved with a favorable settlement.
• Represented respondent, a leading computer, mobile device and media player company, in a Section 337 investigation involving eight patents before the International Trade Commission (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-953). The parties settled before any determination.
• Co-chaired the defense of a leading computer security company in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California involving one patent related to assessing computer system security, resulting in a jury verdict of both invalidity and noninfringement in July 2015 (Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-04545-VC). In March 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the verdict on appeal (Case No. 16-1562).
• Represented respondent, an international lithography company, in a Section 337 investigation involving three patents before the International Trade Commission (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-983). The case resolved with a favorable settlement.
• Represented defendant, a leading US automobile manufacturer, in a patent infringement action in the Western District of Washington involving nine patents related to collision avoidance and multiprocessor systems, resulting in a favorable jury verdict in March 2015 (Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-05503-BHS).
• Represented defendant, a leading financial institution, in a patent infringement action filed in the Western District of North Carolina involving five patents related to business methods (Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-00358-RJC-DSC) and in related Covered Business Method Review proceedings. The case was dismissed following successful Covered Business Method Review proceedings.
• Represented respondents, leading US processor and computer companies, in a Section 337 investigation involving six patents before the International Trade Commission; resulted in favorable Initial and Commission Determinations of no violation, which were affirmed by the Federal Circuit (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-781).
• Represented defendant, a leading US processor company, in a patent infringement action filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving six patents relating to Wi-Fi; settled favorably following the court’s Markman ruling (Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-179-MHS-CMC).
• Represented respondent, a leading computer, mobile device and media player company, in a Section 337 investigation involving five patents before the International Trade Commission; resulted in Initial Determination of no violation, Commission Determination of no violation as to three patents, and Presidential veto of Commission’s determination of violation as to the remaining patent (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-794).
• Represented respondent, a leading computer, mobile device and media player company, in Section 337 investigations involving 14 patents before the International Trade Commission; resulted in a determination of no violation and subsequent settlement (ITC Inv. Nos. 337-TA-701, 337-TA-771).
• Represented complainant in a Section 337 investigation concerning digital camera technology before the International Trade Commission; resulted in a determination of infringement and validity of the asserted patents and subsequent favorable settlement (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-663).
• Represented complainant, a leading global positioning system (GPS) and assisted GPS (A-GPS) semiconductor products and software company, in a Section 337 investigation before the International Trade Commission; resulted in a Final Determination of violation based on infringement and validity of all six asserted patents (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-602).
• Represented flash memory manufacturer accused of infringing patents in two successive Section 337 investigations before the International Trade Commission, each resulting in a Final Determination of no violation (ITC Inv. Nos. 337-TA-526, 337-TA-560).

Professional Activities

Nina previously served as an Adjunct Associate Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law, where she taught Patent Litigation.  She is also a member of the International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association (ITCTLA).