Peter J. Cuomo

I'll research this attorney's professional background before drafting.

Let me dig into the tracked case and his PTAB/Federal Circuit track record.

Let me verify a few outcomes and check his Federal Circuit argument record.

Peter J. Cuomo — Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo (Boston), Of Counsel

Focus areas. Cuomo's practice is patent litigation and IP enforcement/defense, spanning every phase from pre-suit investigation through trial and Federal Circuit appeal, plus inventorship disputes, trade secret misappropriation, and trademark/contract claims (Mintz firm bio). His technology mix is unusually life-sciences weighted for a generalist litigator: he has handled numerous Hatch-Waxman/ANDA pharmaceutical cases, plus biotechnology, medical devices, automotive components, mechanical and consumer products, and some electronics. His only tracked case, IdeaHub Inc. v. Unified Patents, LLC, involves video-codec (HEVC/streaming) patents — standard-adjacent high-tech work, though there is no indication of Wi-Fi/SEP-specific practice in the sourced record. He is also a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 58,481) and does prosecution-adjacent counseling (freedom-to-operate, validity/due diligence opinions).

Side preference. The tracked data show 1 appearance, on the plaintiff side, which is misleadingly thin: the underlying proceeding was Unified Patents, LLC v. IdeaHub, Inc., PGR2022-00044, where Cuomo's client was the patent owner defending its claims, and the appeal caption reflects IdeaHub as appellant. In practice he works both sides. He has led PTAB challenges for petitioners/accused infringers — Eyenovia v. Sydnexis (eye-drop patents invalidated) and the SL Corp./Hyundai Motor America IPRs against Adaptive Headlamp Technologies — while also representing patent owners, including as lead counsel for the patent owner in IPR2022-00415 and in ITC/PTAB work for Glycosyn. So: a defense-side/pro-validity litigator who is equally comfortable enforcing and defending patents, not an NPE/PAE specialist.

Firm context. He is Of Counsel at Mintz in Boston; he was promoted to Member at the firm in 2017 and later moved to Of Counsel. Before Mintz he practiced IP litigation in the Boston office of another international firm (unnamed in his bio). He is admitted in Massachusetts (2004), the Federal Circuit, D. Mass., E.D. Tex., the U.S. Supreme Court, and the USPTO. Education: J.D., Boston University School of Law (2004); M.S., Johns Hopkins University (biotechnology); B.S., Trinity College (biology) — a life-sciences technical background. He has been listed in Best Lawyers for Litigation–Patent since 2024.

Notable matters and PTAB/IPR experience. PTAB is a core part of his practice, not incidental: he appears regularly in IPR/PGR proceedings as lead or backup counsel and writes Mintz's post-grant commentary (Fintiv discretionary denial, General Plastic follow-on petitions, KSR motivation standards). Verified results include the 2017 PTAB decisions invalidating all asserted claims of Adaptive Headlamp Technologies' '034 patent for SL Corp. and Hyundai (IPR2016-00193; IPR2016-01368 joined with IPR2016-00079), which cleared the parallel Delaware case, and Eyenovia Inc. v. Sydnexis Inc., where the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB's invalidation of Sydnexis's eye-drop patents (Law360 via Mintz). His highest-profile tracked matter ended adversely: after the PTAB found all challenged claims of IdeaHub's '274 patent unpatentable, the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1684, Rule 36 judgment, Apr. 10, 2026); he was on the brief but did not argue, and an earlier related IdeaHub appeal (No. 2022-1160) was also affirmed. His firm bio additionally claims a multimillion-dollar jury verdict for a biotechnology client in a Massachusetts trade secret case and an affirmance of permanent injunctions for a packaging company on appeal — these are self-reported representative matters, not independently corroborated here.