Paul Weinand

I'll research this attorney before drafting the summary.

Let me verify the case specifics and firm history.

Paul A. Weinand — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Paul Weinand is a registered patent attorney and intellectual property litigator at Mintz (Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC), based in the firm's Boston office. His Mintz bio describes a practice spanning federal district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, with experience across all phases of litigation — pre-suit investigation, Markman, fact and expert discovery, jury and bench trials, and appeals. The technology areas the firm lists for him are consumer electronics, consumer products, artificial intelligence, and medical devices; the tracked dockets and public filings add semiconductor/flash-memory technology and life-sciences process chemistry (human milk oligosaccharides used in infant formula), plus a solar matter.

Side preference. The tracked list is an even 2–2 plaintiff/defendant split, and the public record supports a genuinely two-sided practice rather than a single-side identity. Plaintiff-side work includes Longitude Licensing Ltd. et al. v. Apple, Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex., filed Feb. 13, 2025, before Judge Albright; pro hac vice admission granted March 2025; stayed pending a parallel ITC action) and the related Section 337 semiconductor investigation, where he is listed as counsel for the complainants — i.e., patent-owner/NPE enforcement. Defendant-side work includes the Unified Patents matter in the tracking data, where he served as supporting counsel (Unified Patents is a member-funded defensive aggregator that routinely mounts PTAB challenges to NPE patents), and the Mintz team's ITC defense of Juul Labs. He works both sides of the "v." — operating-company defense and patent-owner assertion — rather than exclusively one.

Notable matters and outcomes. The most prominent verifiable result is the Mintz team's ITC defense victory for Juul Labs, which was recognized by The Am Law Litigation Daily as a "Litigator of the Week Runner-Up"; Weinand is named among the team members in Mintz's announcement. He also appears in tracked dockets for Chr. Hansen HMO GmbH v. Glycosyn LLC (D. Mass. No. 1:22-cv-11090) and SADE v. North Star Solar LLC (M.D.N.C., 2022). Mintz represents Glycosyn in the underlying HMO dispute — earlier ITC proceedings produced a limited exclusion order against Chr. Hansen/Jennewein that the Federal Circuit affirmed in September 2021, and the D. Mass. action later produced a March 2025 ruling (adopting a magistrate's recommendation) rejecting Abbott's standing and Rule 19 joinder challenge to Glycosyn's infringement claims; the ITC exclusion order was rescinded in July 2025 following settlement. I could not verify Weinand's specific role or individual results in several of these matters from public sources, so those outcomes should be attributed to the broader Mintz teams rather than to him individually.

PTAB/IPR and credentials. His bio states regular practice before the PTAB, consistent with Mintz's active IPR/PGR docket, but I found no public record of him as lead or first-named counsel in specific instituted IPR/PGR proceedings; his PTAB involvement appears to be as part of firm teams rather than as a stand-alone petitioner's counsel. He is a USPTO-registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 77758), earned his J.D. at Georgetown University Law Center (2017), and was admitted in New York (2018) and Massachusetts (2021); he has been selected to Super Lawyers' Rising Stars list. Note a disambiguation caveat: some directory records render his name as "Paul Amandus Weinand" and list him at Latham & Watkins or Baker Botts, which appears to reflect stale or conflated data — the case list here, the live Mintz bio, and the Super Lawyers entry (Georgetown 2017; MA-licensed) consistently identify the Mintz attorney as the practitioner in these matters.