professionalIMG

Michael C. Newman

Member vCard


Education

  • University of Virginia (JD)
  • Saint Anselm College (BA, Biochemistry)

Bar Admissions

  • Massachusetts

Michael's practice is focused on his work with the US International Trade Commission (USITC).  His cases in federal courts also include patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property matters. The areas of technology in which Michael has particular experience include biochemistry, biotechnology, chemistry, computer software, mechanical devices, medical devices, semiconductors, and converged devices.

Before joining Mintz Levin, Michael worked with the law firms Pepper Hamilton LLP and Fish & Richardson PC. He has also worked as a software engineer and has conducted biochemical research at Harvard Medical School.  

Representative Matters

  • Preservation Wellness Technologies LLC v. NextGen Healthcare Information Systems LLC et al - 2016-2193, 2016-2194, 2016-2195 (Fed. Cir.) Successfully argued at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to affirm an Eastern District of Texas ruling from May 2016 that held unpatentable a medical records patent asserted by Preservation Wellness against long-time client NextGen Healthcare. Mintz Levin also argued on behalf of co-appellees Allscripts Healthcare Solutions Inc. and Epic Systems Corp. NextGen Healthcare provides electronic health record, financial, and health information exchange solutions for myriad healthcare organizations and the infringement allegations threatened “Patient Portal,” a key component of the company’s service.

  • Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1044) Filed an ITC complaint on behalf of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). The patented technology covers graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets. Respondents include LG, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs. The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for early December 2017.

  • Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-1023) Represent Complainant Netlist, Inc., a California memory module company, in the ITC asserting six patents against the Korean-based memory giant SK hynix. The technology claimed by the asserted patents is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards, which are implemented by the accused imported products. The respondents are asserting novel RAND defenses in the ITC, and in a co-pending case involving the same patents in the District Court for the Central District of California. The ITC evidentiary hearing is scheduled for early May 2017, while the trial in the CDCA is scheduled for July of 2018.

  • Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O, 2015-1212, (Fed. Cir.) 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.
  • Defense of Multiple IPRs — Point-to-Point Communication Over Computer Networks 
    Representing Straight Patch IP Group in the defense of seventeen inter partes reviews filed against three US patents concerning technology for facilitating point-to-point communications over computer networks. Petitioners include Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Cisco Systems, Inc.; Avaya Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.; Toshiba Corp.; VIZIO, Inc.; Verizon Communications, Inc.; and Hulu, LLC.
  • Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Components Thereof (337-TA-604) Successfully represented a respondent in an ITC investigation involving patents for making sucralose sweeteners.
  • Certain Probe Card Assemblies, Components Thereof and Certain Tested DRAM and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-621) Successfully represented a respondent in an ITC investigation involving patents for semiconductor probe cards. After nine-day trial, obtained complete victory on behalf of client — invalidating one patent and establishing non-infringement and no domestic industry for remaining asserted patents.
  • Certain Electronic Devices, including Handheld, Wireless Communications Devices (337-TA-667) Represented complainant in three-patent ITC case and in parallel Federal District Court cases. Filed in December 2008, the cases were settled as to all respondents by May 2010 and resulted in successful licensing agreements with each, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space – HTC, Panasonic, Research in Motion, and more.
  • Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726) Represented complainant in this three-patent ITC case. Filed in June 2010 against converged device manufacturers and focused on digital camera technology found in cell phones, laptop computers, and personal digital assistants, the matter was fully settled in April 2011. The result was successful licensing programs with three out of four respondents, among which are recognized leaders in the electronics device manufacturing space – HTC, LG, Research in Motion, and more.
  • Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-804) Represented California-based complainant (plaintiff) and its UK parent, companies that make LED lighting systems for use in film and TV production, at the International Trade Commission. The ITC handed down its Final Initial Determination of infringement on September 7, 2012. On January 17, 2013, the ITC issued a General Exclusion Order (GEO) against respondents (defendants) based in both China and the United States. The result in this case is particularly notable because it is rare for the ITC to issue a GEO. It is much more common for complainants to seek and receive a Limited Exclusion Order from the court due to the rigorous criteria and careful balancing of interests that apply to requests for GEOs.
  • Certain Portable Communication Devices (337-TA-827) Represented complainant in the ITC and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space – Amazon, LG, Motorola, Pantech Wireless, Research in Motion, Sony, and more. Cases were filed in December 2011 and settled in May 2012.
  • Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the former Silicon Graphics as complainant in the ITC, and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Cases were filed between late 2011 and early 2012, and all were resolved by the end of January 2013. The technology at issue relates to LCD panels, central processor units, graphics processing units, and other microprocessor technology. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space – Apple, LG, Research in Motion, Samsung, and Sony.
  • Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884) Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC. Investigation was instituted in June 2013 and among the respondent entities were Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, and ZTE. Most respondents settled. After an evidentiary hearing held over several days in May 2014, on August 29, 2014 Mintz Levin successfully obtained a recommendation for a Limited Exclusion Order against the remaining respondent, which chose to settle while Commission review of the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination was pending.
  • Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) Represented owner of portfolio of communications and computing patents from former enterprise communications business unit of large multinational innovation company. An ITC investigation was instituted in August 2014 as to respondent entities Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and HTC Corporation. Google participated as an intervenor. The investigation resolved prior to evidentiary hearing in June of 2015.
  • Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) Represented owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents as Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of automotive manufacturers, and infotainment system and chip suppliers. Respondents include Honda, Toyota, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments, Renesas, Harman International, and Fujitsu-Ten. The investigation instituted in January of 2016 and resolved favorably prior to the conclusion of expert discovery in August of 2016.
  • Forbest International USA, LLC, Beijing Forbest Trade Co., Ltd., et. al – Successfully represented a group of defendants in patent litigation involving a process for making sucralose. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint after motions to dismiss for lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction.
  • Repligen et. al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb (E.D. Mich. - 2:00cv73690) Represented a plaintiff in a case relating to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Case settled. 
  • Medtronic v. Abbott et. al.  Represent the defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit relating to cardiovascular stents. Case settled.
  • Insight Technology Inc. v. SureFire, LLC Represented the plaintiff in patent litigation involving laser aiming modules for handguns. Case settled.
  • Insight Technology Inc. v. Glock Inc. and Glock Ges.m.b.H Represented the plaintiff in patent litigation involving laser aiming modules for handguns. Case settled.
  • Aplix, Inc., v. Velcro Industries B.V. and Velcro USA, Inc. Represented Velcro in patent litigation involving hook and loop fasteners. Case settled.
  • Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. CIBA Vision Corporation Successfully represented the plaintiff in patent litigation related to silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Obtained a $41 million jury verdict for the patentee.
  • GE Homeland Protection Inc. v. DSA Detection LLC et. alRepresented defendants in trade secrets and patent litigation relating to consumables for trace detection instruments, such as ion mobility spectrometers. Case settled.
  • Represented Ugandan client pro bono in application for political asylum in the United States. Client granted political asylum
  • Represented Tibetan client pro bono through removal proceedings in immigration court. Client granted political asylum

Recognitions & Awards

  • Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Rising Star – Intellectual Property Litigation (2013 - 2016)