Skip to main content

Adam P. Samansky

  • 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.
Case Study
Mintz secured a rare US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling that entirely reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision. The PTAB had canceled each of the challenged claims of Straight Path IP Group’s patent for protocols for establishing communication links through a network.
Case Study
For Kowa Pharmaceuticals and Nissan Chemical, Mintz sued nine generic drug makers that had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) with the FDA. The court upheld the validity and infringement of all asserted claims in two patents for the cholesterol drug Livalo®.
Case Study
Mintz protected clients’ patents related to the cholesterol drug Livalo®. Mintz defended against three IPRs filed by generic manufacturers that had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) with the FDA and secured Patent Trial and Appeal Board denials of institution of the generic companies’ IPR petitions.
Case Study
Mintz defended Israeli telecom company RAD Data Communications against a USPTO petition for inter partes review (IPR) that challenged a patent covering one of RAD’s core technologies. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a rare ruling denying institution of the IPR.