`University of Virginia (JD)
`Saint Anselm College (BA,
`Biochemistry)
`
`BAR ADMISSIONS
`Massachusetts
`
`Michael C. Newman
`Associate
`
` vCard
`
`email
`Boston
`+1.617.348.1626
`
`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.
`
`PRACTICES
`Intellectual Property
`IP Litigation
`Intellectual Property &
`Technology Litigation
`Litigation
`Valuation & Assessment
`
`INDUSTRIES
`Technology, Communications &
`Media
`
`Representative Matters
`
`Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Components Thereof (337TA
`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 (337TA621) – Successfully
`represented a respondent in an ITC investigation involving patents for semiconductor probe
`cards. After nineday trial, obtained complete victory on behalf of client — invalidating one
`patent and establishing noninfringement and no domestic industry for remaining asserted
`patents.
`
`Certain Electronic Devices, including Handheld, Wireless Communications Devices (337
`TA667) Represented complainant in threepatent 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 (337TA726) 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 (337TA804)
`Represented Californiabased 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 (337TA827) 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
`TA836) Represented investors in 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.
`
`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. BristolMyers 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.
`
`Samsung v. Straight Path, IPR2014-01366
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2012 - Page 1
`
`
`
`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. al. – Represented 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 2014)
`
`
`
`Publications
`
`Coauthor, Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Jurisdiction for NonPracticing Entities,
`Intellectual Property Advisory (02.01.2013)
`
`Newsroom
`
`EightyFive Mintz Levin Attorneys Named 2014 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and
`Rising Stars , (10.17.2014)
`
`SeventyNine Mintz Levin Attorneys Named 2013 Massachusetts Super Lawyers
`and Rising Stars , (10.21.2013)
`
`© 2015 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
`
`Samsung v. Straight Path, IPR2014-01366
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2012 - Page 2