Skip to main content

Adam P. Samansky

Member

APSamansky@mintz.com

+1.617.348.1819

Share:

Adam is an experienced IP litigator who primarily serves pharmaceutical, medical, high tech, and defense industry clients. He handles patent, trademark, and trade secret matters for innovators and investors. 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 electronics. 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 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.

Education

  • Suffolk University Law School (JD)
  • Brandeis University (BA)

Experience

  • Rehrig Pacific Co. v. Polymer Logistics (Israel), Ltd., et al., 2:19-cv-04952 (C.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel to Polymer Logistics (Israel) Ltd., defending 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.
  • Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland), Inc. v. GL Leading, Inc., 1:19-cv-02648 (N.D. Ill.) – Lead counsel to several divisions of Philips Healthcare in a case brought against competitors and a former employee, inter alia, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets relating to the design and manufacture of X-ray tubes used in commuted tomography.
  • 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.
  • 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.  Adam achieved a favorable settlement (on the day before the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) bar date).
  • 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.

Recognition & Awards

  • Best Lawyers in America: Intellectual Property Litigation (2018 - 2021)
  • Included on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Rising Star - Intellectual Property Litigation list (2013 – 2018)

Involvement

  • Member, Boston Bar Association
  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Member, Boston Patent Law Association
  • Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Member, American Chemical Society

Recent Insights

News & Press

Events

Viewpoints

Trade Secrets Viewpoint Thumbnail

Fact-Specific Inquiry: Deciding Between Trade Secret and Patent Protection

September 15, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington

Innovations that are eligible for patent protection are often vital to a company’s revenue stream and profitability, but in some cases, opting for trade secret protection is a better strategic choice.
Read more
Trade Secrets Viewpoint Thumbnail

Rules of Engagement: Minimizing Trade Secret Disputes when Hiring Rival Employees

September 10, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington

An ethical corporate culture and clear expectations during the hiring process can help companies curtail trade secret disputes when hiring employees from rival companies.
Read more
Video Viewpoint Thumbnail
In the fourth installment of our video series on trade secret litigation,  Adam Samansky discusses the importance of taking a holistic approach to intellectual property, looking at both patent and trade secret protection where appropriate.
Read more
Trade Secrets Viewpoint Thumbnail

Playing Fair: Protect Trade Secrets from Business Partners

September 8, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington

Companies can minimize trade secret theft by business partners by instituting non-disclosure agreements before sharing trade secrets and establishing general confidentiality agreements with business partners.
Read more
Trade Secrets Viewpoint Thumbnail

Workplace Confidential: Preventing Former Employees from Using Your Trade Secrets

August 24, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington

By proactively protecting trade secrets and using litigation strategically, companies can minimize trade secret misappropriation by former employees.
Read more
Trade Secrets Viewpoint Thumbnail

Danger on the Horizon: Detecting Early Signs of Trade Secret Theft by Competitors

August 20, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington

Companies can quickly detect trade secret theft by planting an unneeded feature or part that would be included in a copycat item and continually monitoring competitors’ new products.
Read more
Trade Secrets Viewpoint Thumbnail

Keeping (Trade) Secrets Amid a Reduction in Force

August 17, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Nicholas Armington

Companies can lower the risk of trade secret theft amid a reduction in force by limiting and auditing the use of trade secrets and including confidentiality provisions in severance agreements.
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail
On July 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in APS Technology, Inc. v. Vertex Downhole, Inc. et al, No. 19-cv-01166, denied Vertex Downhole’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss APS’s patent infringement complaint.
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail
On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Mich. Motor Techs., v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 19-10485, granted Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss Michigan Motor Technologies’ (MMT’s) willful infringement claims and request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because MMT failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly establish that Volkswagen acted egregiously and with knowledge of both the asserted patents and Volkswagen’s infringement thereof.
Read more
Federal Circuit Appeals Viewpoint Thumbnail

Federal Circuit: Licensees’ Failure to Mark Eliminates Entitlement to Pre-Suit Damages

July 27, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Matthew Karambelas, Courtney Herndon

Recently, in Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., No 19-2041 (July 14, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of $3.5 million in pre-suit damages and vacated the trial court’s enhancement of that award because licensees of the asserted patents failed to properly mark allegedly patent practicing products.
Read more

News & Press

News Thumbnail
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.
News Thumbnail
Law360 covered developments in a trade secret lawsuit involving X-ray tubes brought on by Mintz client Philips Medical Systems, Inc. against Chinese companies Kunshan GuoLi Electronic Technology Co. Ltd. and its subsidiary, Kunshan Yiyuan Medical Technology Co. Ltd.
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.
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.
Press Release Thumbnail
Best Lawyers named 85 Mintz attorneys to its 2018 list of The Best Lawyers in America. In addition, Mintz attorneys Matthew J. Gardella and Samuel M. Tony Starr were named “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective practice areas.
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.
Fifty-three Mintz attorneys have been named Massachusetts Super Lawyers for 2016 and thirty-one have been named Massachusetts Rising Stars. The findings will be published in the November 2016 issue of Boston Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New England Super Lawyers. 

Events

Speaker
Aug
4
2020
Webinar Reference Image
Moderator
Jan
23
2020

20th Annual Intellectual Property Year in Review

Boston Bar Association

Boston Bar Association, 16 Beacon Street, Boston

Panelist
Apr
7
2019

BPIP 7th Annual Conference

Best Practices in Intellectual Property

Sheraton Tel Aviv Tel Aviv, Israel

Moderator
Jun
28
2018

Data Protection at the Intersection of Trade Secrets and Cybersecurity

Boston Patent Law Association

Mintz Levin One Financial Center Boston, MA

Speaker
Apr
30
2018

AIPPI-Israel’s 3rd Annual International Convention on the Economy of Innovation

AIPPI-Israel

David Intercontinental Hotel 12, Kaufman Street Tel Aviv, Israel

Speaker
Mar
11
2018

BPIP 6th Annual Conference

Best Practices in Intellectual Property

Sheraton Tel Aviv Tel Aviv, Israel

Mar
26
2017

Life Sciences Breakfast

GKH Law Offices

Tel Aviv

Speaker
Speaker
Sep
9
2015

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

Speaker
May
11
2015

IP Best Practices Conference 2015

Intellectual Property Resources

Tel Aviv, Israel