- Intellectual Property
- IP Litigation
- Valuation & Assessment
- Life Sciences
- Retail & Consumer Products
- Technology, Communications & Media
|Contact Info||Telephone: 617.348.1819|
|University ||Brandeis University, B.A.|
|Law School||Suffolk University, J.D.|
|Admitted||2004, Massachusetts; New YorkNew York; United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York; United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; United States Supreme Court; US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas|
|Born||Manhasset, New York, January 1, 1978|
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.
• Mintz Levin Further Expands IP Practice with Eighteen Attorneys, (01.09.2015)
• Featured in Mintz Levin Adds More from Edwards Wildman, Bingham McCutchen, The American Lawyer (01.08.2015)
• Co-author, Commil USA V. Cisco Systems: “I thought it was legal” is no defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), Intellectual Property Advisory (08.03.2015)
• Speaker, 2015 U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Year in Review, Gross, Kleinhendler, Hodak, Halevy, Greenberg & Co., Tel Aviv, Israel (09.09.2015)
• Speaker, IP Issues in Business Transactions, IP Best Practices Conference 2015, Intellectual Property Resources (05.11.2015)
Recognitions & Awards
•Member, Boston Bar Association
•Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
•Member, Boston Patent Law Association
•Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association
•Member, American Chemical Society
|Reported Cases||Representative Matters: 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. UbiComm v. Bulbs.com, 1;13-cv-00872-RGA (D. Del.): Served as lead counsel, defending against NPE claims of patent infringement; obtained dismissal under 35 U.S.C. 101. Inline Plastics Corp. v. EasyPak, LLC, Appeal No. 14-1305 (Fed. Cir.): Served as principal appellate counsel, arguing appeal of case-dispositive claim construction. Previously obtained dismissal of invalidity counterclaims and entry of judgment on infringement to permit expedient appeal. 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. Select Retrieval v. Bulbs.com, 4:12-cv-10389-TSH (D. Mass.): Served as lead counsel; obtained dismissal of NPE claims for indirect infringement and willfulness in a case of first impression in the District of Massachusetts. Samson Manufacturing v. Austin Precision Products, 1:09-cv-30027 (D. Mass.): Served as lead counsel, defending against claims of patent infringement related to weapon mounts for optical devices. Superior Shooting Systems v. Cole, 3:10-cv-01226 (N.D. Tex): Served as lead counsel, litigating a declaratory judgment action that sought correction of inventorship, assignment and shop rights in patents related to optical ballistics technology. VLP Watertown Limited Partnership v. TriState Breeders Coop., 07-cv-11487-GAO (D. Mass. 2010): Served as trial counsel on highly technical aspects of a trade secret misappropriation case before a jury in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts; resulted in a multimillion-dollar judgment for the client. 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. Wellman, Inc., v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355 (2011), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied (Aug. 11, 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1541 (2012). Coordinated a team of attorneys in a briefing before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on a petition for rehearing en banc and the US Supreme Court; secured reversal of summary judgment of indefiniteness. Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1295 (2008): Played a pivotal role in the briefing and argument in what is now the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's authoritative pronouncement on the law of chemical obviousness, post-KSR. 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. Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 549 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1295 (2009). Obtained a finding (adjudicated on the papers) of an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285, 459 F. Supp. 2d 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), and a subsequent award of attorneys' and experts' fees, 2007 WL 840368 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2007). Also drafted briefing before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and US Supreme Court to see that judgment upheld.|
Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com
For the First Time PTAB Upholds Validity of Pharma Patents
David Cotta,Peter J. Cuomo,Adam P. Samansky, February 27, 2015
On December 9, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) upheld the validity of three Supernus Pharmaceutical’s patents relating to once-daily formulations of doxycycline. The trio of decisions is significant because one of the three patents had been at issue in a Hatch...
|Profile Visibility |
|#173 in weekly profile views out of 20,250 lawyers in Boston, Massachusetts|
|#15,873 in weekly profile views out of 1,722,821 total lawyers Overall|