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

  • Rehrig Pacific Co. v. Polymer Logistics (Israel), Ltd., et al., 2:19-cv-04952 (C.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel to Polymer Logistics (Israel) Ltd., defending 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 - 2020)
  • 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

Viewpoint-Landing Intellectual Property Mintz
As 2020 begins and intellectual property (IP) strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2019.  According to many readers, hot topics included § 112 written description, prosecution history estoppel, and venue in the wake of TC Heartland.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Fox Factory v. SRAM, Nos. 2018-2024 and 2018-2025, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in a pair of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027 (“the ’027 patent”) were not invalid as obvious, and remanded for further proceedings.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
Recently, in Sanofi-Aventis v. Mylan, 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW, Judge Stanley Chesler of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, denied a motion by defendant Mylan for summary judgment of invalidity of asserted patent claims that were found to be obvious by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On August 13, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 18-cv-14305, held that venue was not proper in New Jersey over Mylan in a patent infringement action arising from Mylan’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug, Jublia®.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On August 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc., Nos. 2018-2126, 2127, 2128, reversed in-part and affirmed in-part a district court’s determination of infringement.  The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding of literal infringement but ultimately affirmed judgments of infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On April 17, 2019, Judge Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in Apicore v. Beloteca, No. 19-cv-00077, held that while the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a generic drug manufacturer in connection with the patentee’s action seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, venue was not appropriate in the Eastern District of Texas under the applicable patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
The constitutionality of yet another portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act will soon be determined. Following in the footsteps of the blockbuster decision in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (“Tam”), the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Iancu v. Brunetti on January 4, 2019. In Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court held that the prohibition in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act against registering disparaging trademarks at the U.S. Trademark Office (“USPTO”) was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. However, Section 2(a) also prohibits the registration of other categories of marks, including marks that are immoral and scandalous. It is the constitutionality of this prohibition which is at issue in Brunetti.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On February 7, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Momenta Pharmaceuticals v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, No. 2017-1694, dismissed Momenta’s appeal of a Final Written Decision in an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) because Momenta had terminated its potentially infringing drug development program. According to the panel, this left Momenta without a sufficiently concrete interest in the action to satisfy the standing requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
A federal district court judge recently applied the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, in which the Supreme Court held that lost profits damages could be awarded for infringement occurring under 35 U.S.C.§ 271(f), to cover damages for direct infringement occurring under 35 U.S.C.§ 271(a) (see our prior post here for an overview of the case and the issues before the Court, and here for an overview of the Court’s June opinion). 
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On October 18, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 17-00379, held that venue was not proper in Delaware over Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) in connection with a claim for patent infringement arising from Mylan’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug, apixaban.
Read more

News & Press

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
23
2020

BPIP 8th Annual Conference

Sheraton Hotel, Tel Aviv

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