Peter’s practice involves intellectual property enforcement and defense, and client counseling on issues related to IP rights. His primary focus is in patent litigation where he has experience in every phase of trials and appeals as well as alternative dispute resolution. In addition to suits centered on the assertion and defense of infringement claims, Peter has experience with the successful resolution of multiple inventorship disputes and related misappropriation claims. In addition to litigation, he provides product analyses, and enforcement advice, and evaluates infringement and validity issues in relation to patent opinions and due diligence work.

Peter has represented clients across a wide range of technologies such as biotechnology inventions, automotive parts, medical and mechanical devices, consumer products. He has worked on numerous high-stakes Hatch-Waxman litigations for major pharmaceutical companies through trial and appeals. In addition to patent litigation, Peter has experience in disputes involving breach of contracts and trade secret misappropriation claims.

Peter is a registered patent attorney licensed to practice and argue before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In addition to representing clients in US District Courts and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, he has represented clients in multiple post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and successfully arbitrated a dispute for a major biotechnology company before the International Chamber of Commerce in Geneva, Switzerland.

Prior to joining the firm, Peter practiced in the intellectual property litigation practice in the Boston office of another international law firm. He also previously worked in and supervised an academic laboratory focused on researching infectious diseases. He is a co-author on multiple scientific papers and spent time in Zambia investigating the co-infection of measles and HIV. During law school, Peter was an editor on the Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law and worked as a research assistant in intellectual property and the Health Law Department.

Federal District Court

Chr. Hansen HMO GMBH f/k/a Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH v. Glycosyn LLC, 1:22-cv-11090 (D.MA) – Represent defendant and counter-claim plaintiff Glycosyn asserting patent on bioengineered human milk oligosaccharides (pending).
Evoke Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1:22-cv-02019 (D.N.J.) - Represented Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., in settled ANDA litigation involving metoclopramide nasal spray product.
Horizon Medicines LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2:20-cv-08188 (D.N.J.) – Represented Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., in ANDA litigation involving fixed-dose oral combination product. Obtained dismissal with prejudice after briefing case-dispositive claim construction.
Nanoco Technologies, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 2:20-cv-00038 (EDTX) - Represented Nanoco in enforcing patents directed to quantum dots used in televisions resulting in $150M settlement for client.
Copan Italia SpA, et al. v. Puritan Medical Products Company LLC, et al.,1:18-cv-00218 (DME) - Represent Copan in enforcing patent infringement and unfair competition claims against primary competitor in a case involving the use of flocked swabs used in biological diagnostic assays.
Rehrig Pacific Co. v. Polymer Logistics (Israel), Ltd., et al., 2:19-cv-04952 (C.D. Cal.) – Defended claims of patent infringement brought by a competitor. Successfully transferred 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 prior to favorable settlement.
Kowa Company, Ltd., et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al., Nos. 14-2758 and 14-7934 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2017 and September 19, 2017), affirmed, No. 2018-1051 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2018): Enforced client’s chemical compound and polymorph patents covering an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor. Patents all held valid and defendants’ ANDA approval enjoined.
M&C Innovations, LLC v. Igloo Products Corp., 4:17-cv-02372 (W.D. Tex.) – Defended client Igloo from allegations of patent infringement and unfair competition on one of its most significant product lines.
Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America, 1-15-00563-GMS (Jun. 26, 2017) – Defended client against claims of patent infringement for technology covering mechanical headlights. Case dismissed following a stay and successful validity challenge before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Inline Plastics Corp. v. Easypak, LLC DMA-4-11-cv-11470 (D. Mass 2015) – Joined case after Markman and obtained dismissal of invalidity counterclaims and entry of judgment on infringement to allow for an expedited appeal. Case settled on favorable terms following remand.
Dallakian v. IPG Photonics, 14-cv-11863-TSH (D. Mass.) - Successfully defended against claims for correction of inventorship and trade secret misappropriation.
Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) aff’d, 435 Fed. Appx. 927 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2011): Enforced client’s patent covering a high concentration formulation of an anticoagulant under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The patent was found valid and defendant’s ANDA approval was enjoined.
Accentra Inc. v. Staples, Inc., 851 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2011), rev’d in part by Accentra Inc. v. Staples, Inc., No. 2012-1237 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2013). – Defended against claims of patent infringement brought by a former business partner and competitor. Client settled on favorable terms following determination that two of three patents were either not infringed or invalid.
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.

Patent Office Proceedings

Eyenovia, Inc. v. Sydnexis, Inc., IPR2022-00384, -00414, 00415 – Represent pharmaceutical client challenging patent claims directed to low-dose ophthalmic compositions and method of using the same (pending)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v. Nanoco Technologies, Ltd., IPR 2021-00182, -00183, -00184, -00185, and -00186 - Represented patent owner and obtained decisions upholding all claims as valid.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Quest Diagnostics Investments LLC, IPR2019-00738, IPR2019-01425, IPR2019-01517, IPR2019-01618 - Represented diagnostic company patent owner in multiple proceedings involving methods of detecting metabolites.
Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH v. Glycosyn LLC, PGR2019-00023 - Represented biotechnology patent owner and obtained decision denying institution of PGR.
Acclarent, Inc. et al v. Ford Albritton, IV, IPR2017-00498 (Jul. 9, 2018) - Represented medical device company in decision involving guide catheter apparatus.
SL Corporation v. Adaptive Headlamp Technologies, Inc., IPR2016-00193 and IPR2016-01368 (Mar. 15, 2017) – Represented automotive client challenging patent claims asserted in district court resulting in a decision finding all claims unpatentable.
Indivior Inc. v. Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P., IPR2018-00795 (Oct. 4, 2018) - Decision involving methods of opioid substitution therapy using buprenorphine sublingual film.
Green Cross Corp. v. Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc., IPR2016-00258 (Mar. 22, 2017) - Decision involving actual reduction to practice of recombinant protein.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., IPR2015-01069, (Oct. 20, 2015) - Represented pharmaceutical company patent owner and obtained decision denying institution of IPR.
Sawai USA, Inc., et al. v. Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., IPR2015-01647, (Feb. 4, 2016): Represented pharmaceutical company patent owner and obtained decision denying institution of IPR.
Sawai USA, Inc., et al. v. Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., IPR2015-01648, Paper No. 9 (Feb. 4, 2016): Represented pharmaceutical company patent owner and obtained decision denying institution of IPR.
Ace Bed Co., Ltd. v. Sealy Technology LLC, IPR2014-01119, Paper No. 12, (Nov. 24, 2015): Represented petitioner in proceeding involving bed springs and all claims were determined to be unpatentable.
Saturn Biomedical Systems, Incorporated v. Aircraft Medical Limited, Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,161 – Counsel to district court defendant medical device company and third-party requester in a complex inter partes reexamination involving nearly 300 claims related to video laryngoscopy. All but one claim that did not pose a risk of infringement were determined to be unpatentable.

Appellate

Copan Italia S.p.A. v. Puritan Medical Products Company LLC, 22-1943 (Fed. Cir.) - Represent Copan in defendants’ appeal from decision denying immunity from liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) (pending).
Copan Italia S.p.A. v. ITC, 23-1668 (Fed. Cir.) - Represent Copan in appeal from ITC decision (pending).
Copan Italia S.p.A. v. Puritan Medical Products Co. LLC, No. 22-7085 (D.C. Cir. 2022) - Represented Copan in defendants’ appeal from decision denying immunity from liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Nanoco Technologies Ltd., Nos. 22-1847, -1848, -1849, -1850, -1851 (Fed. Cir. 2022) - Represented Nanoco in appeal from patent office decisions finding all challenged claims valid. Dismissed pursuant as part of $150M settlement for client.
Acclarent, Inc. v. Albritton, No. 18-2377 (Fed. Cir. 2019) - Represented medical device company in appeal from patent office decision involving guide catheter apparatus.
Kowa Company, Ltd., et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, No. 2018-1051 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2018): Represented pharmaceutical company following a successful Hatch-Waxman patent infringement. Obtained affirmance of district court judgment upholding client’s patents over anticipation, obviousness, and obviousness-type double patenting challenges.
Green Cross Corporation v. Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc., No. 17-2071 (Fed. Cir, 2018) – Represented client on appeal of IPR proceeding. Successfully defeated motion to dismiss for lack of standing prior to favorable settlement and dismissal.
Inline Plastics Corp. v. EasyPak, LLC, 799 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015) – Represented Inline against a primary competitor and successfully achieved reversal and remand on case-dispositive claim construction.
Accentra Inc. v. Staples, Inc., No. 2012-1237 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2013) – Represented Staples against competitor on appeal. Obtained reversal on two out of three patent issues and affirmance of summary judgment of no trademark infringement. Client settled on very favorable terms following remand to district court.
Rubin v. The General Hospital Corporation, No. 2011-1439 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2013) – Represented the General Hospital Corporation (MGH) on appeal following a successful defense against plaintiff’s inventorship challenge at the district court. Judgment affirmed.
SpendingMoney LLC v. American Express Co., No. 2012-1481 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2013) - Represented the client on appeal following a successful summary judgment determination of noninfringement. Judgment affirmed.
MeadWestvaco v. Rexam, Appeal, 731 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2013) - Represented MeadWestvaco on appeal of issues including claim construction, summary judgment determinations, and bench finding of infringement.
Mitsubishi Chem. Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 435 Fed. Appx. 927 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2011) - Represented pharmaceutical company following a successful Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action at the district court. Judgment affirmed.

International Trade Commission

Certain Flocked Swabs, Products Containing Flocked Swabs, And Methods of Using Same (337-TA-1279) - Representing Copan Italia and Copan Industries as complainants in the International Trade Commission, asserting patent infringement claims against global competitors in a case involving the use of flocking technology (common in the textile industry) in the production of biological specimen collection swabs. Evidentiary hearing is scheduled for June 2022.
Certain Human Milk Oligosaccharides and Methods of Producing the Same (337-TA-1120) – Represented Glycosyn LLC as complainant before the ITC against respondent Jennewein Biotechnologies GmbH, a large global competitor. The complaint alleged unlawful and unauthorized importation and production and/or manufacture of 2'-fucosyllactose oligosaccharides that directly infringe one or more claims of Glycosyn's U.S. Patent No. 9,453,230. Following oral hearing in May 2019, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Determination finding that Jennewein had infringed claims of Glycosyn’s patent and recommended that a limited exclusion order issue, including a certification provision with heightened requirement.

Read less

Dueling Declaratory Judgment Suits Result in a Dismissal and Boomerang Transfer Back to the First-filed Forum Under TC Heartland

April 24, 2019 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski

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).

February 11, 2019 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski

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.

October 24, 2018 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski

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.

September 25, 2018 | Blog | By Peter Cuomo, Courtney Herndon

Recently in Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) finding certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,714,977 (“the ’977 Patent”), directed to dental implants, unpatentable as anticipated. The Nobel decision is the latest in a recent line of Federal Circuit cases holding that materials distributed at conferences, trade shows, and meetings are publically available “printed publications” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

May 29, 2018 | Blog | By Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski

On May 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, In re: ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 2018-113, held that Federal circuit law governs the burden of proof for venue challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to demonstrate proper venue upon a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of venue.

May 9, 2018 | Blog | By Michael Newman, Peter Cuomo

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a propose change to the standard for construing both unexpired and amended patent claims in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings under the America Invents Act (“AIA”).

October 23, 2017 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski

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.

October 9, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Peter Cuomo, Inna Dahlin

On September 6, 2017, an expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued an “informative” decision in General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd, v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha setting forth the Board’s framework for analyzing follow-on inter partes review (IPR) petitions.

June 28, 2017 | Blog | By William Meunier, Peter Cuomo

In EmeraChem Holdings LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am. Inc., the Federal Circuit reminded the PTAB that it must abide by the APA’s requirements of adequate notice and an opportunity to respond when conducting a post-grant review.

May 18, 2017 | Blog | By John Bauer, Peter Cuomo

On May 10, 2017 and following a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reexamination decision upholding certain claims, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC that all of the appealed claims of a fiber optic patent held by Cirrex are invalid for lack of a written description support required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.

Read less

Fed. Circ. Won't Revive Sydnexis Eye Drop Patents

May 12, 2025

Law360 recently quoted Thomas Wintner, Chair of Mintz’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice, on the Federal Circuit’s decision to uphold the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s ruling that invalidated Sydnexis Inc.’s eye-drop patents. Tom, along with Member Peter Cuomo and Associate William Dixon, represented Eyenovia Inc. in challenging the patents.

The Best Lawyers in America 2025 Recognizes 184 Mintz Attorneys across 56 Practice Areas

August 15, 2024

187 Mintz attorneys have been recognized by Best Lawyers® in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Notably, three Mintz attorneys received 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” awards, and 64 firm attorneys were included in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

One Hundred Twenty Mintz Attorneys Ranked as Leaders by Best Lawyers 2024

August 17, 2023

Mintz is pleased to announce that 120 firm attorneys have been recognized as leaders by Best Lawyers® in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©.

Mintz Guides Nanoco Group in $150M Patent Litigation Settlement

February 03, 2023

Mintz secured a $150 million settlement for Nanoco Group plc in the company’s patent infringement litigation against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. Mintz Member Michael Newman led a team that represented the maker of cadmium-free quantum dots and other nanomaterials in a federal district court in Texas and before the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Why Cellect's Federal Circuit Case Is One To Watch

December 16, 2022

Members Adam Samansky and Peter Cuomo spoke to Managing IP on the implications that a pending case in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could have on litigation and prosecution strategies for life sciences companies.

As ANDA Suit Venue Options Shrink, Del., NJ Rule For Now

November 29, 2021

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.

Don’t Be Caught Without Possession (of Your Invention): What You Need To Know About the Written Description Requirement

May 12, 2021

Mintz Members Peter Cuomo and Muriel Liberto co-authored an article published in the March/April 2021 issue of IP Litigator that examined how the U.S. written description requirement is developing in the ‘unpredictable’ pharmaceutical and biotechnology-related arts. In their article, Mr. Cuomo and Dr. Liberto reviewed a line of post-Ariad “blaze marks” cases illustrating what may become a trend toward a higher bar for satisfying the written description requirement in the United States, particularly as applied to genus claims covering molecules large and small, such as antibodies, enzymes, and small organic molecules. Where the claim further relies upon functional language to define a genus of compounds, the authors cautioned that the bar is likely to be even higher to the extent this line of cases is followed.

SCOTUS Doctrine of Equivalents Case Refusal is Good News for Patent Owners

July 14, 2020

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.

PTAB Says Mass. Biotech's Milk Patent Ineligible For Review

September 18, 2019

An article published by Law360 reported that following the U.S. International Trade Commission’s initial decision that Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH’s imports infringe a Glycosyn LLC patent on human milk oligosaccharides, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Jennewein’s petition for post-grant review of a related patent.

The Mintz team representing Glycosyn at the ITC includes Michael Newman, Thomas Wintner, Michael Renaud and James Wodarski; and the Mintz team representing Glycosyn at the PTAB includes Michael Newman, Thomas Wintner, Peter Cuomo and Daniel Weinger.

The Estoppel Questions On The Minds Of Patent Challengers

September 9, 2019

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.

Victory on Appeal After Lengthy Litigation Over Cholesterol Inhibitor

December 14, 2018

Mintz Promotes Six Attorneys to Member

May 23, 2018

Mintz Secures Full Patent Victory for Kowa Pharmaceuticals and Nissan Chemical in Lengthy Battle

September 22, 2017

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.

Mintz Triumphs for SL Corporation and Hyundai Motor America, Inc. Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

March 16, 2017

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.

Read less