Skip to main content

Adam P. Samansky

Member

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1819

Share:

Adam is an experienced IP litigator who primarily serves pharmaceutical, medical, high tech, and defense industry clients. He handles patent, trademark, and trade secret matters for innovators and investors. Adam has a strong record of success in multiparty, highly contested Hatch-Waxman litigation, in addition to other litigations involving advanced biochemistry, polymers, optics, manufacturing processes, and electronics. He has tried cases before multiple US district courts, briefed and argued cases before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and briefed bet-the-company issues before the US Supreme Court.

For pharmaceutical clients, Adam leverages his trial and appellate experience in litigation when advising on new product development, regulatory strategy, Orange Book listing, citizen petition practice, and the settlement of multiparty, highly contested Hatch-Waxman litigation. Adam regularly conducts due diligence on blockbuster pharmaceutical assets, including reviewing and assessing litigation, regulatory, and competitive strategies.

Prior to joining the firm, he was a partner in the Boston office of another international law firm.

Education

  • Suffolk University Law School (JD)
  • Brandeis University (BA)

Experience

  • Horizon Medicines LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2:20-cv-08188 (D. NJ) – Lead Counsel to Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., in ANDA litigation involving fixed-dose oral combination product.

  • Green Cross Corporation v. Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc., Appeal No. 17-2071 (Fed. Cir) – Served as appellate counsel to Green Cross Corporation, successfully defeating a motion to dismiss for lack of standing to challenge a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

  • Rehrig Pacific Co. v. Polymer Logistics (Israel), Ltd., et al., 2:19-cv-04952 (C.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel to Polymer Logistics (Israel) Ltd., defended claims of patent infringement brought by a competitor.  Successfully brought a motion to transfer the action from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia to the Central District of California, and also obtained dismissal of willful infringement claims through the strategic use of Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) motion practice.

  • Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland), Inc. v. GL Leading, Inc., 1:19-cv-02648 (N.D. Ill.) – Lead counsel to several divisions of Philips Healthcare in a case brought against competitors and a former employee, inter alia, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets relating to the design and manufacture of X-ray tubes used in commuted tomography.
  • Kowa Pharmaceuticals America et al v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and related cases - Represented plaintiffs Kowa Company, Ltd., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. and Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. in litigation which involved compound, formulation, and polymorph patents directed toward quinoline-type mevalonolactones (or, pitavastatin calcium) relating to the drug product Livalo®. Presented the plaintiffs' infringement case at 10-day trial, through which plaintiffs prevailed on all issues. Also represented Kowa and Nissan in connection with the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s judgment, and was involved in the team’s successful POPR, resulting in a denial of institution of three petitions for inter partes reviews filed by defendants in these cases.
  • Novatrans Group S.A. v. Vital Farms, Inc., et al, 1:18-cv-01012 (D. Del.) – Lead counsel, representing Novatrans Group S.A. (“Novatrans”).  Brought a claim for declaratory judgment to require assignment of certain patent rights and a claim under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act in the District of Delaware, while simultaneously defending a breach of contract claim against Novatrans in the Western District of Texas. These cases involved duelling claims of inventorship of a system to determine the fertility status and gender of an avian egg before hatching. Obtained a settlement resulting in publicly recorded assignments of the contested patent application to Novatrans.
  • M&C Innovations, LLC v. Igloo Products Corp., 4:17-cv-02372 (W.D. Tex.) – Served as lead counsel, defending Igloo from allegations of patent infringement and unfair competition involving one of his client’s most significant product lines.  Adam achieved a favorable settlement (on the day before the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) bar date).
  • Inline Plastics Corp. v. EasyPak, LLC, 799 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015) – Served as principal appellate counsel, arguing for reversal and remand on case-dispositive claim construction. Previously obtained dismissal of invalidity counterclaims and entry of judgment on infringement to permit expedited appeal. Inline achieved highly-favorable settlement on remand.
  • MKS Instruments v. Emphysys, C.A. No. 12-1858-BLS (Ma. Super. Ct.) - Served as lead counsel, defending against claims of trade secret misappropriation related to advanced semiconductor manufacturing technology.  The case settled very favorably after a positive summary judgment hearing.
  • MeadWestvaco v. Rexam, Appeal No. 12-1518 (Fed. Cir.) - Served as principal appellate counsel, and subsequently represented the plaintiff-appellee on remand to the Eastern District of Virginia. The appeal dealt with matters of claim construction, summary judgment decision of non-obviousness, denial of summary judgment of indefiniteness, and bench finding of infringement.
  • Dallakian v. IPG Photonics, 3:14-cv-11863-TSH (D. Mass.) - Served as lead counsel, successfully defending against claims for correction of inventorship and trade secret misappropriation. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint after defendant secured expedited discovery and an early summary judgment motion.
  • VLP Watertown L.P. v. Tristate Breeders Cooperative d/b/a/ Accelerated Genetics, 1:07-cv-11487-GAO (D. Mass.) – Represented VLP in litigation of trade secret misappropriation claims involving a cell processing method shown to improve fertility and induce statistically significant female gender bias in dairy herds. Obtained jury verdict of trade secret misappropriation and multimillion-dollar judgment in our client’s favor.
  • Mitsubishi Chem. Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d, 435 Fed. Appx. 927 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2011) - Served as trial and appellate counsel to pioneer pharmaceutical company in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action.
  • Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan Labs. Inc., 417 F. Supp. 2d 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) - Served as trial and appellate counsel to pioneer pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action.

Recognition & Awards

  • Best Lawyers in America: Intellectual Property Litigation (2018 - 2022)
  • Included on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Rising Star - Intellectual Property Litigation list (2013 – 2018)

Involvement

  • Member, Boston Bar Association
  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Member, Boston Patent Law Association
  • Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Member, American Chemical Society

Recent Insights

News & Press

Events

Viewpoints

Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Open Question: Use of Stolen Trade Secrets May or May Not Qualify as a Predicate Act Under RICO

March 10, 2022 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Michael McNamara, Nicholas Armington, Oliver Ennis

Since the passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), trade secret owners have been able to use allegations of trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA to support civil claims under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Specifically, DTSA violations that qualify as predicate acts can be used to show a pattern of racketeering activity, which may allow a trade secret owner to state civil claims under RICO, and thus take advantage of the substantial remedies that the RICO statute provides, including the potential for treble damages and attorney’s fees.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
On January 26, 2022, in what appears to be a case of first impression, U.S. District Court Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a biosimilar applicant defendant’s motion to dismiss patent infringement claims brought in the second phase of the parties’ Biosimilar Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) litigation. In so doing, Judge Lee held that the reference product sponsor (“RPS”) plaintiff is not limited to only declaratory judgment actions in the second phase of litigation under the BPCIA.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

D. Del. Says ANDA Specification Trumps All Else in Infringement Analysis

February 17, 2022 | Blog | By Peter Cuomo, Adam Samansky, Joe Rutkowski, Tianyi Tan

On February 8, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the plaintiff’s motion to exclude defendant’s expert testimony for being “based on an erroneous legal theory” in a suit alleging defendants’ proposed generic Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) product would infringe Exela’s patents under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Judge Noreika’s decision in this case reinforces the Federal Circuit’s holding in Sunovion and serves as a reminder that ANDA product infringement is primarily assessed by comparing the asserted claims with the ANDA specification, rather than other ANDA submission materials further describing the ANDA product.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
On January 18, 2022, U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California sided with the majority of divided district courts, dismissing claims of willful and induced infringement that based the defendants’ required knowledge of the asserted patents on its receipt of the original complaint for patent infringement. Ravgen Inc. v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., No. 21-cv-09011 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2022) ECF 146 - Order dismiss willful infringement
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York addressed an issue of first impression concerning what constitutes “misappropriation” under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) in a decision potentially relevant to cases involving allegations of trade secret misappropriation under the DTSA against a former employee. This case is worthy of note for any trade secret practitioner and is an important reminder that when pleading alleged trade secret misappropriation, it is not only important to describe the trade secret with sufficient particularity, but also to sufficiently describe the alleged misappropriation so as to illustrate the alleged acquisition of the trade secret by improper means or disclosure of the trade secret without consent.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Hatch-Waxman Defendants for Lack of Venue and Failure to State a Claim

November 12, 2021 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski

On November 5, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 21-1154, affirmed a decision from the District Court of New Jersey dismissing a suit brought by Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”) under Rule 12(b)(6) for improper venue as to defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) and Mylan Inc. and for the failure to state a claim against defendant Mylan N.V. Celgene had brought suit after MPI submitted an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug Pomalyst used to treat multiple myeloma. In assessing venue, the court held that it was MPI’s ANDA submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and not the sending of a notice letter to Celgene in New Jersey, that was the artificial act of infringement pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act. The district court thus held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that venue in New Jersey was improper.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Federal Circuit Clarifies that Willful Infringement Does Not Require Egregious Conduct

October 26, 2021 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski

On September 28, 2021, in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Nos. 2020-1685, -1704, clarified its decision from a prior appeal in the same case to hold that a finding of willful infringement requires only deliberate or intentional infringement, not egregious, wanton, malicious, or bad-faith infringement conduct.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
In what appears to be a case of first impression, on August 23, 2021 U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a biosimilar applicant’s motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit brought under the Biosimilar Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) against a foreign parent corporation that did not file or sign the relevant abbreviated Biologics License Application (“aBLA”).
Read more

News & Press

News Thumbnail
Mintz Members Peter Cuomo and Adam Samansky and Associate Joseph Rutkowski were quoted in an article published by Law360 on the potential implications of the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., which cemented a prior decision in Valeant v. Mylan holding that patent suits against generic drugmakers must be filed where the company is incorporated or where it performed actions related to its Abbreviated New Drug Application.
News Thumbnail
Mintz Members Peter Cuomo and Adam Samansky co-authored an article published by IAM examining the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny a petition for certiorari in Eli Lilly and Co. v Hospira, Inc., upholding the infringement of Eli Lilly’s chemotherapy drug Alimta (pemetrexed), and what the development means for the doctrine of equivalents and for patent application amendments.
News Thumbnail
Law360 covered developments in a trade secret lawsuit involving X-ray tubes brought on by Mintz client Philips Medical Systems, Inc. against Chinese companies Kunshan GuoLi Electronic Technology Co. Ltd. and its subsidiary, Kunshan Yiyuan Medical Technology Co. Ltd.
In this article published by Law360, Mintz Members Adam Samansky and Peter Cuomo commented on lingering questions related to the America Invents Act's estoppel provision, which prevents challengers from arguing in court that a patent is invalid on grounds that were raised — or reasonably could have been raised — during inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Mintz has secured a string of substantial victories in Hatch-Waxman litigation for innovative drug manufacturers Kowa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., and Nissan Chemical Industries Ltd.
Press Release Thumbnail
Best Lawyers named 85 Mintz attorneys to its 2018 list of The Best Lawyers in America. In addition, Mintz attorneys Matthew J. Gardella and Samuel M. Tony Starr were named “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective practice areas.
Mintz announced a pair of victories before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on behalf of SL Corporation and Hyundai Motor America, Inc. against Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc.
Fifty-three Mintz attorneys have been named Massachusetts Super Lawyers for 2016 and thirty-one have been named Massachusetts Rising Stars. The findings will be published in the November 2016 issue of Boston Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New England Super Lawyers. 

Events

Speaker
Mar
22
2021

IPBC Connect 2021

IAM

Virtual Event

Conference Reference Image
Speaker
Aug
4
2020
Webinar Reference Image
Moderator
Jan
23
2020

20th Annual Intellectual Property Year in Review

Boston Bar Association

Boston Bar Association, 16 Beacon Street, Boston

Panelist
Apr
7
2019

BPIP 7th Annual Conference

Best Practices in Intellectual Property

Sheraton Tel Aviv Tel Aviv, Israel

Moderator
Jun
28
2018

Data Protection at the Intersection of Trade Secrets and Cybersecurity

Boston Patent Law Association

Mintz Levin One Financial Center Boston, MA

Speaker
Apr
30
2018

AIPPI-Israel’s 3rd Annual International Convention on the Economy of Innovation

AIPPI-Israel

David Intercontinental Hotel 12, Kaufman Street Tel Aviv, Israel

Speaker
Mar
11
2018

BPIP 6th Annual Conference

Best Practices in Intellectual Property

Sheraton Tel Aviv Tel Aviv, Israel

Mar
26
2017

Life Sciences Breakfast

GKH Law Offices

Tel Aviv

Speaker
Speaker
Sep
9
2015

2015 U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Year in Review

Gross, Kleinhendler, Hodak, Halevy, Greenberg & Co.

One Azrieli Center, Round Building, Tel Aviv, Israel

Speaker
May
11
2015

IP Best Practices Conference 2015

Intellectual Property Resources

Tel Aviv, Israel