Adam is an experienced IP litigator who primarily serves life sciences and defense industry clients. He is lead counsel, handling patent and trade secret disputes, in addition to providing strategic counsel on IP portfolio development, licensing and enforcement. 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 other cutting edge technologies. 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.
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 also advises on due diligence, including reviewing and assessing litigation, regulatory, and competitive strategies.
Adam is an experienced IP litigator who primarily serves life sciences and defense industry clients. He is lead counsel, handling patent and trade secret disputes, in addition to providing strategic counsel on IP portfolio development, licensing and enforcement. 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 other cutting edge technologies. 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.
Experience
- Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland, Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 21-cv-14271, 23-cv-01617, 24-cv-08785. Lead counsel to Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in consolidated ANDA litigations involving mixed salt formulation of gamma hydroxybutyrate oral solution.
- Trupanion, Inc. v. Destination Pet, Inc., No. 23-2-18452 (Sup. Ct.King Cty). Lead counsel to Destination Pet, Inc. in defense of trade secret misappropriation claims and prosecution of counterclaim for abuse of process.
- Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland), Inc. v. GL Leading, Inc., 1:19-cv-02648 (N.D. Ill.), 24-1182 (7th Cir.) – Lead counsel to Philips in a case brought against domestic and international competitors, inter alia, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets relating to the design and manufacture of X-ray tubes used in commuted tomography. Obtained sanction of default judgement against China-based companies after successfully defeating serial motions to dismiss and compelling discovery over China State Secrets and Data Protection Law objections. Obtained permanent injunction with no geographic or temporal limitation, in addition to an award of attorneys’ fees and contempt sanctions against China-based defendants. Obtained summary dismissal of interlocutory appeal of contempt sanctions, and stay of litigation against U.S.-based defendants in view of pending criminal investigation of related misconduct of U.S. defendants by U.S. Department of Justice.
- Keter Home and Garden Products, Ltd. v. Five Hole International, LLC, 1:21-cv-01291 (D. Del.) – Lead Counsel to Keter in trade secret and patent inventorship dispute. Obtained extremely favorable settlement resulting in assignment of disputed patent application.
- Keter Luxembourg Sarl v. Home Products International – North America, Inc., 1:21-cv-00477 (D. Del.) – Lead counsel to Keter in patent infringement litigation involving design patent covering highly successful line of consumer products. Obtained favorable early settlement prohibiting continued marketing of accused products in U.S. and other global markets.
- Horizon Medicines LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2:20-cv-08188 (D.N.J.) – Lead Counsel to Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., in ANDA litigation involving fixed-dose oral combination product. Obtained dismissal with prejudice after briefing case-dispositive claim construction.
- Evoke Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1:22-cv-02019 (D.N.J.) - Lead Counsel to Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., in ANDA litigation involving metoclopramide nasal spray product.
- WePower Technologies LLC v. GenerEN, LLC, 7:22-cv-03364 (S.D.N.Y) – Co-lead counsel to WePower in trade secret misappropriation litigation seeking, inter alia, assignment of patent purporting to claim misappropriated energy harvesting technology.
- Lions Investment & Trading, Inc. v. Republic Floor, LLC, 22-cv-02777 (C.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel to defendant in trademark and unfair competition litigation. Efficiently obtained favorable negotiated resolution.
- ClimaCell, Inc. v. Hagit Messer-Yaron, 1:19-cv-11487 (D. Mass.) – Lead counsel to individual defendant in trade secret and breach of contract litigation. Obtained highly favorable settlement during pendency of motions to dismiss.
- Rehrig Pacific Co. v. Polymer Logistics (Israel), Ltd., et al., 2:19-cv-04952 (C.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel to Polymer Logistics (Israel) Ltd., defended 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.
- 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.
- CAI Software , LLC v. Multimetco, Inc., 1:19-cv-00540 (D.R.I.) – Lead counsel to plaintiff in trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement litigation.
- 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.
- Wireless Monitoring Systems, LLC v. SimpliSafe, Inc., 2:16-cv-1241 (E.D. Tex) – Successfully defended claim of patent infringement by non-practicing entity.
- Tangelo IP, LLC v. TigerDirect, Inc., 2:15-cv-00771 (E.D. Tex.) – Successfully defended claim of patent infringement by non-practicing entity, after being engaged by supplier of accused technology. Obtained favorable outcome for supplier all end-users of accused technology.
- 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.
viewpoints
Trade Secret Thieves, Beware! The DTSA Can Reach You and Your Sales Around the Globe.
July 30, 2024 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Brad M Scheller, Adam Samansky, Laura Petrasky
This month the Seventh Circuit in Motorola Sols., Inc. v. Hytera Commc’ns Corp. Ltd. upheld the Northern District of Illinois in finding that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) has extraterritorial reach. Companies can seek relief when misappropriation occurs abroad and for the sales lost abroad when an act in furtherance of the trade secret misappropriation occurs in the United States.
Federal Circuit Affirms Obviousness of Rifaximin Polymorph Patents and Denial of Motion to Modify Judgment After Post-Trial Patented Indication Carve Out
April 25, 2024 | Blog | By Joe Rutkowski, Peter Cuomo, Thomas Wintner, Adam Samansky, Alex Trimble, PhD
In a precedential opinion issued on April 11, 2024 in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., Nos. 22-2153, 23-1952, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision holding claims directed to polymorphic form “β” of rifaximin invalid as obvious.
How Your Trade Secret Could Help to Defend Against Claims of Patent Infringement
February 1, 2024 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Nicholas Armington, Stephen Chen
Supreme Court Unanimously Affirms Amgen Repatha® Antibody Patents Invalid for Lack of Enablement
May 25, 2023 | Blog | By Joe Rutkowski, Peter Cuomo, Thomas Wintner, Adam Samansky, Terri Shieh-Newton
Federal Circuit Affirms Delisting of REMS System Patent from FDA Orange Book
March 6, 2023 | Blog | By Peter Cuomo, Adam Samansky, Peter McFadden
On February 24, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Case No. 23-1186, affirmed a decision from the District Court of Delaware directing Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Jazz”) to delist U.S. Patent No. 8,731,963 (the “’963 patent”) from the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations publication (the “Orange Book”). The district court held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that the ’963 patent, which covers Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”) for the narcolepsy drug Xyrem®, failed to claim a drug or method of use, and was thus improperly listed.
Federal Circuit Resolves District Court Split, Holds Foreign Defendant Cannot Defeat Rule 4(k)(2) Personal Jurisdiction by Unilateral Post-suit Consent to Jurisdiction in Alternative Forum
January 23, 2023 | Blog | By Joe Rutkowski, Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo
On January 9, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Stingray IP Solutions, LLC, No. 23-102 granted a writ of mandamus, vacating a decision of the Eastern District Court of Texas which had transferred a patent infringement suit filed against foreign defendants to the Central District of California based on defendants’ post-suit consent to jurisdiction there.
Southern District Magistrate Judge Holds That Pleading Willful Patent Infringement Does Not Require Allegations of “Egregious” Infringing Activity and That Requisite Knowledge May Be Provided by a Prior Complaint in the Same Action
January 3, 2023 | Blog | By Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski, Adam Samansky
On December 19, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the Southern District of New York recommended denying a motion to dismiss claims of willful infringement of eight patents asserted in a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The recommendation finds (1) that pleading willful infringement does not require allegations of egregious infringing conduct and (2) that requisite knowledge of the asserted patents and alleged infringement could be satisfied by the filing of the Original Complaint along with plaintiff’s email (“pre-SAC email”) informing the defendants of additional alleged infringement of two patents prior to filing the SAC.
Eastern District of Texas Holds Willful Infringement Knowledge Requirement May Be Satisfied by Informing Non-Party of Infringement Claims Before Adding That Party as a Defendant
October 19, 2022 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski
On October 5, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne of the Eastern District of Texas recommended denying-in-part a motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement, holding that requisite knowledge of the asserted patent and alleged infringement of that patent could be satisfied by notice of the lawsuit before the moving defendant was added as a party.
An Emerging Split on the Applicability of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine Under the DTSA
October 10, 2022 | Blog | By Oliver Ennis, Nicholas Armington, Adam Samansky
Federal courts remain split on whether the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) allows for trade secret misappropriation claims brought under a theory of inevitable disclosure. Given this current patchwork of treatment of inevitable disclosure claims across the nation, owners of trade secrets and litigators of trade secret claims should continue to stay up to date on the treatment of this issue in the jurisdictions in which they practice.
Judge Albright Holds Willful Infringement Pleading Does Not Require Allegations of Egregious Infringing Behavior
July 22, 2022 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski
On July 12, 2022, U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas denied alleged infringer Lenovo’s motion to dismiss ACQIS’s willful and indirect infringement and enhanced damages claims, holding that patent owners need not allege egregious infringing behavior to assert a claim of willful infringement.
News & Press
Mintz is pleased to announce that 31 attorneys have been named Massachusetts Super Lawyers and 35 attorneys have been named Massachusetts Rising Stars for 2024.
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.
BOSTON – Nine Intellectual Property attorneys from Mintz have been recognized in the 2024 edition of the Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) Strategy 300 Global Leaders Guide.
Fifty-Nine Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
October 12, 2023
Mintz is pleased to announce that 32 attorneys have been named Massachusetts Super Lawyers and 27 attorneys have been named Massachusetts Rising Stars for 2023.
Mintz is pleased to announce that Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud and Members Matthew Galica, Frank Gerratana, Marguerite McConihe, Michael Newman, Adam Rizk, Adam Samansky, Daniel Weinger, and James Wodarski have been named to the 2023 IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists list.
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©.
BOSTON – Mintz is pleased to announce that it has become an official sponsor of the Pan-Mass Challenge (PMC).
Member Adam Samansky spoke to The Boston Business Journal about the FTC's proposal to ban noncompete agreements.
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.
Watching The DTSA Court Split On Inevitable Disclosure
October 18, 2022
Mintz Member Adam Samansky and Associates Nicholas Armington and Oliver Ennis co-authored an article re-published in Law360 exploring the split amongst federal courts on the Defend Trade Secrets Act.
35 Mintz attorneys have been named Massachusetts Super Lawyers and 25 Mintz attorneys have been named Massachusetts Rising Stars for 2022.
Best Lawyers® recognized 108 firm attorneys in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Notably, two Mintz attorneys – Poonam Patidar and Scott M. Stanton – received 2023 “Lawyer of the Year” awards, and 28 firm attorneys were included in the inaugural edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.
As ANDA Suit Venue Options Shrink, Del., NJ Rule For Now
November 29, 2021
The Estoppel Questions On The Minds Of Patent Challengers
September 9, 2019
Victory on Appeal After Lengthy Litigation Over Cholesterol Inhibitor
December 14, 2018
Mintz Secures Full Patent Victory for Kowa Pharmaceuticals and Nissan Chemical in Lengthy Battle
September 22, 2017
Mintz Triumphs for SL Corporation and Hyundai Motor America, Inc. Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
March 16, 2017
Eighty-Four Mintz Attorneys Named 2016 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
October 18, 2016
Mintz Further Expands IP Practice with Eighteen Attorneys
January 09, 2015
Events & Speaking
IP in the Digital Age: Trends and Transformations
Boston Bar Association IP Year In Review Conference
Trade Secret Threat Looms Due to Economic Downturn: Protecting and enforcing trade secrets in the COVID era
View the Webinar Recording
BPIP 7th Annual Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property
Sheraton Tel Aviv Tel Aviv, Israel
Data Protection at the Intersection of Trade Secrets and Cybersecurity
Boston Patent Law Association
Mintz Levin One Financial Center Boston, MA
AIPPI-Israel’s 3rd Annual International Convention on the Economy of Innovation
AIPPI-Israel
David Intercontinental Hotel 12, Kaufman Street Tel Aviv, Israel
BPIP 6th Annual Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property
Sheraton Tel Aviv Tel Aviv, Israel
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
Adam is an experienced IP litigator who primarily serves life sciences and defense industry clients. He is lead counsel, handling patent and trade secret disputes, in addition to providing strategic counsel on IP portfolio development, licensing and enforcement. 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 other cutting edge technologies. 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.
Recognition & Awards
Best Lawyers in America: Intellectual Property Litigation (2018 - 2025)
Named to IAM Strategy 300: Global Leaders (2024)
Included on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers - Intellectual Property Litigation list (2021 – 2023)
Included on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Rising Star - Intellectual Property Litigation list (2013 – 2018)
Adam is an experienced IP litigator who primarily serves life sciences and defense industry clients. He is lead counsel, handling patent and trade secret disputes, in addition to providing strategic counsel on IP portfolio development, licensing and enforcement. 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 other cutting edge technologies. 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.
Involvement
- Member, Boston Bar Association
- Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
- Member, Boston Intellectual Property Law Association, Co-Chair Trade Secrets Committee
- Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association