×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.Associate
no photo

Ping Hu

Not yet reviewed

Boston, MA, U.S.A.

Intellectual Property, Patent Procurement, Post-Grant Proceedings and 11 more

About Ping Hu

Ping Hu is a lawyer practicing intellectual property, patent procurement, post-grant proceedings and 11 other areas of law. Ping received a M.S. degree from Dartmouth College, and has been licensed for 17 years. Ping practices at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. in Boston, MA.

Ping Hu (Boston, Massachusetts)

Reviews for Ping

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Intellectual Property
  • Other 13
    • Patent Procurement
    • Post-Grant Proceedings
    • IP Litigation
    • Technology & Royalty Acquisition
    • Technology Transfer & Licensing
    • Valuation & Assessment
    • Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation
    • Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery
    • Technology
    • Communications & Media
    • Life Sciences & Biotechnology
    • Medical Technology
    • Patent Application

Practice Details

  • Languages
    M
    arin
  • Firm Information
    Position
    Associate
    Firm Name
    Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Representative Matters: Federal District Courts
    Yahoo Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal. - 3:12-cv-01212-JSW) - Defended Facebook in patent litigation related to various Internet
    social media technologies
    Broadcom Corp. v. NXP Semiconductors, NV, et al. (C.D. Cal. - 8:13-cv-00829-MRP) - Defended Broadcom in patent litigation related to Near Field Communications (NFC) technologies
    Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. Research in Motion Ltd., et al. (S.D.N.Y. - 1:11-cv-8908-CM) - Defended Research in Motion (BlackBerry) in patent litigation related to video codec technologies
    U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC. v. Acer, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal. - 4:10-cv-03724-CW) -Defended Broadcom Corporation in patent litigation related to Ethernet technology
    Ericsson Inc. et al. v. D-Link Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex. - 6:10-cv-00473-LED) - Defended Broadcom Corporation in patent litigation related to various network technologies
    Potter Voice Technologies LLC, v. Apple, Inc., et al. (D. Colorado - 12-CV-01096-REB-CBS) - Defended Research in Motion (BlackBerry) in voice recognition technologies
    Locata LBS LLC v. Factual Inc. (C.D. Cal. - 2:13-cv-07743-JAK-SH) - Defended Factual in patent litigation related to GPS technologies
    Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Vlingo Corp. (D. Mass. - 1:09-cv-11414) & (D. Del. - 1:09-cv-00585) - Defended Vlingo Corporation in patent litigation related to voice recognition technologies
    ATMI Packaging, Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., et al. (D. Mass. - 1:10-cv-11247) -Represented ATMI in patent litigation related to bio-reactors
    mixing devices
    Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Troy Industries, Inc. (D. Mass. - 1:10-cv-10761) -Represented Atlantic Research Marketing Systems in patent litigation related to weapon accessories
    Ambato Media, LLC. v. Clarion Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. - 2:09-cv-242) - Represented Ambato Media in patent litigation related to location-based service on navigation devices
    Lumenis Ltd. et al. v. Alma Lasers Ltd. et al. (N.D. Ill. - 1:07-cv-03622) - Represented Lumenis in patent litigation related to laser
    pulsed light medical devices
    Phoenix Technologies Ltd. v. DeviceVM (N.D. Cal. - 3:10-cv-00514) - Represented Phoenix Technologies in patent litigation related to computer firmware
    Liquidnet Holdings, Inc. v. Pulse Trading, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. - 1:07-cv-06886) - Defended Pulse Trading in patent litigation related to block trading technologies
    Uniloc USA, Inc., et al v. Microsoft Corp. (D.R.I. - 1:03-cv-00440) - Represented Uniloc in patent litigation related to anti-piracy software technologies
    Mangosoft IP v. Skype Technologies, SA, et al (E.D. Tex. - 2:06-cv-00390) - Represented Mangosoft in patent litigation related to peer-to-peer networking software
    DuFresne v. Microsoft Corporation, et al (D. Mass. - 1:02-cv-11778) - Represented DuFresne in patent litigation related to dynamic webpage technologies
    CVS Corporation v. Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (C.D. Cal. - CV 07-3002-RGK) - Defended CVS in patent litigation related to automated call processing technologies

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    2009, Massachusetts
    United States Patent and Trademark Office
    Memberships

    Professional & Community Involvement
    •Member, Boston Bar Association
    •Member, Boston Patent Law Association
    •Member, American Bar Association

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Suffolk University
    J.D.
    summa cum laude
    Other Education
    Dartmouth College
    M.S.
    Physical Chemistry

    Fudan University
    B.S.
    Polymer Science and Engineering

    Fudan University
    B.S.
    Distinguished Graduate with Highest Honor

Ping Hu

Associate at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Not yet reviewed

One Financial CenterBoston, MA 02111U.S.A.

Lawyers Nearby

Raymond P. Ausrotas
Pro
Raymond P. Ausrotas
5.0
8
Intellectual Property lawyer
857-347-5643
View Profile
Joseph L. Demeo
Pro
Joseph L. Demeo
5.0
1
Intellectual Property lawyer
857-788-0963
View Profile
Gary E. Lambert
Pro
Gary E. Lambert
5.0
1
Intellectual Property lawyer

Free Consultation

857-354-5241
View Profile
no photo
Pro
Eric H. Karp
4.6
3
Intellectual Property lawyer
857-365-4951
View Profile
Daniel Kleven Gelb
Pro
Daniel Kleven Gelb
4.7
17
Intellectual Property lawyer

Free Consultation

857-788-0961
View Profile

Email Ping Hu

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions