throbber
Michael C Newman
`Member ­ Intellectual Property
`
`Boston
`MCNewman@mintz.com
`
`BIOGRAPHY
`General/Web:
` 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
`
`Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Components Thereof (337­
`TA­604) –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 (337­TA­
`621) – 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 (337­TA­667) 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
`three­patent 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
`
`LG Electronics v. Straight Path, IPR2015-00209
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2026 - Page 1
`
`

`

`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 (337­TA­836) 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.
`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)
`
`LG Electronics v. Straight Path, IPR2015-00209
`Straight Path - Exhibit 2026 - Page 2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket