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.

Adam’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation. He handles patent, trademark, and trade secret matters on behalf of innovators and investors in a range of industries. His core practice includes patent and trade secret litigation involving complex technologies in the pharmaceutical, medical, high-tech, and defense industries. Adam has tried cases before multiple US District Courts, briefed and argued cases before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and has 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

  • Victory at CAFC: PTAB Decision Reversed and Remanded - Represented Straight Path IP in successfully appealing to the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) the adverse result of an inter partes review handled by another firm. The IPR decision cancelled all challenged claims of Straight Path’s US Patent No. 6,108,704. In the Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU SRO appeal, the CAFC for the first time completely reversed an adverse IPR decision, remanding the matter for further proceedings under the correct construction advocated by Mintz Levin and Straight Path.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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®. Several of the cases successfully resolved pre-trial, and after a 10-day trial plaintiffs prevailed on all issues in two court decisions against the remaining defendants, Amneal and Apotex. Mintz Levin represents Kowa and Nissan in the appeal filed by Amneal and Apotex in the Federal Circuit. The team also defeated institution of three inter partes reviews filed by generic manufacturer defendants in these cases.
  • Successful Denial of IPR Petitions — Pharmaceuticals Mintz Levin prepared and filed Preliminary Patent Owner Responses to three inter partes review petitions filed by generic pharmaceutical manufacturers against our client Nissan Chemical. Based on those filings, the PTAB denied all three petitions. The petitioners are defendants in Hatch-Waxman litigation filed by Mintz Levin on behalf of Kowa and Nissan Chemical to protect their market position for Livalo®, an important pharmaceutical which reduces LDL cholesterol. IPR2015-01069, IPR2015-01647, IPR2015-01648
  • 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.
  • 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 - 2019)
  • 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

Viewpoints

On April 16, 2018 in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma v. Emcure Pharms., Nos. 2017-1798, -1799, -1800, affirmed the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by construing the claimed chemical structure diagram to encompass at least the specific enantiomer depicted, refusing to limit the claim to only cover a racemic mixture of the (+) and (–) enantiomers, absent clear indication that the depicted enantiomer should be excluded from the claim.
Section 271 of Title 35 of the United States Code is the statute that codifies unlawful acts of patent infringement.  The most commonly asserted provisions are § 271(a) (direct infringement), § 271(b) (induced infringement), and § 271(c) (contributory infringement).
On Monday, November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in SAS Institute v. Matal.
In a precedential opinion issued on October 11, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) finding of non-obviousness where the prior art taught away from some, but not all, of the embodiments covered by the challenged claims.
On July 17, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, in a precedential opinion in Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 2015-2066 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2017), a district court ruling that claims of a patent directed to the Velcade® cancer treatment drug compound were invalid as obvious.
On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, in a precedential opinion, that prosecution disclaimers may only limit the scope of a claim where the disclaimer is “both clear and unmistakable to one of ordinary skill in the art.”
On Monday, January 9, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ petition for certiorari to reverse an opinion by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed a broad scope of personal jurisdiction over generic ANDA filers in patent infringement suits under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
Plaintiffs bringing patent infringement complaints under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard should take notice.  On September 30, 2016, a panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a deficient complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commil v. Cisco held that a good-faith belief of a patent’s invalidity, standing alone, is insufficient to provide a defense to a claim of inducing another’s infringement of a United States Patent.

News & Press

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.
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

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

Panelist
Mar
11
2018

BPIP 6th Annual Conference

Best Practices in Intellectual Property

Sheraton Tel Aviv Tel Aviv, Israel

Speaker
Mar
11
2018

BPIP 6th Annual Conference

Best Practices in Intellectual Property

Sheraton Tel Aviv Tel Aviv, Israel

Moderator
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