Highlight Image
Kenyon Successfully Represents Toyota in Years-Long Patent Litigation

Kenyon & Kenyon LLP successfully represented Toyota Motor Corp. in a long term patent litigation against American Vehicular Sciences (AVS). Originally brought by AVS in the Eastern District of Texas, the matter asserted 24 patents across seven separate cases – accusing essentially every major Toyota vehicular safety system. In the three years since the original filing, the Kenyon team filed 12 separate petitions for inter partes review (IPR) and won a stay in the E.D. Tex. pending resolution of the IPRs. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted each of the IPRs, and significant claims were cancelled or dropped. Additionally, the Kenyon team successfully petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus and the case was transferred from the E.D. Tex. to the Eastern District of Michigan, and filed various invalidity summary judgment papers, causing the plaintiff to drop a number of other asserted patents. In May of 2015, the E.D. Mich. granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motions to dismiss with prejudice all of the remaining cases against Toyota. (2015)

Michael K. Levy Partner
New York, NY 1.212.908.6221


Michael Levy has nearly twenty years' experience advising companies in the pharmaceutical, drug delivery, biologic, medical device, and industrial chemical fields on all areas of patents law.

An experienced litigator, he appears in cases before federal district courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A registered patent attorney, Mr. Levy also has experience before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in post grant proceedings such as inter partes reviews (IPRs) and reexaminations.

Mr. Levy also prosecutes patent applications in the chemical and life sciences areas, counsels inventors and patent owners on the scope and validity of their intellectual properties, and advises clients as to any potential for infringement of the patent rights of others. Mr. Levy also assists prospective investors in due diligence efforts with respect to intellectual property.

Prior to joining the Firm, Mr. Levy practiced intellectual property law in Philadelphia, focusing on patent prosecution and litigation covering a wide variety of disciplines, including pharmaceuticals, coatings, microchip manufacturing, specialty chemicals and alternative energy technologies. Mr. Levy began his legal career practicing environmental law, particularly addressing liability and insurance coverage issues stemming from environmental contamination. Before attending law school, Mr. Levy worked as an engineer for an environmental and occupational health and safety consulting firm.

Representative Experience

  • Torrent Pharmaceuticals in an inter partes reexamination proceeding. This IPR challenged a Novartispatent covering a formulation for a multiple sclerosis treatment. The resultant decision was one of the first where claims of an Orange Book patent were determined to be unpatentable by the PTAB in an IPR. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited et al. v. Novartis AG et al., IPR2014-00784 and IPR2015-00518.
  • Noven Pharmaceuticals in two inter partes reexamination proceedings. These two IPRs related to Novartis patents listed in the Orange Book in connection with a product for treating Alzheimers dementia. The patents had already been the subject of a previous litigation involving another party in the District of Delaware. This previous litigation resulted in a non-obviousness holding that was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.  Despite this, the PTAB was successfully persuaded that the claims of the patents-at-issue were unpatentable as obvious. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Novartis AG et al., IPR2014-549 and IPR2014-550.
  • Teva Pharmaceuticals in a patent infringement actions concerning Teva’s AB-rated generic equivalent to Pfizer’s Neurontin®. Obtained a favorable settlement two weeks into a scheduled seven-week jury trial. Warner-Lambert Company et al. v. Purepac Pharmaceutical et al. (D.N.J)
  • Boston Scientific in a patent litigation in which a jury found that Johnson & Johnson's CYPHER® drug-eluting stent infringes Boston Scientific's U.S. Patent 6,120,536. The jury also upheld the validity of the patent. Boston Sci Scimed et al. v. Cordis et al. (D. Del.)
  • Sanofi-Synthelabo in a patent litigation involving a claim by Purdue for compensation for a cold remedy called pleconaril, which is patented by Sanofi. The court dismissed Purdue Research Foundation's case against our client Sanofi-Synthelabo, for lack of personal jurisdiction. The decision follows an earlier victory for Sanofi in a related case in Indiana. The D.C. case becomes one of the few decisions addressing jurisdiction over non-resident patentees. Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A. (D.D.C.)
  • Sanofi-Synthelabo in an appeal, in which the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court decision and dismissed the case, involving a patented anti-viral compound, against our client, Sanofi Syntholabo, S.A. for lack of personal jurisdiction in Indiana. Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A. (7th Cir.)

Select Publications

  • “Over a Year Later, the Akamai Decision is Still in the Cross-Hairs,” Bloomberg BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, January 24, 2014.


  • Warner-Lambert Company, et al v. Purepac Pharmaceutical, et al. Read More
  • Boston Scientific Scimed v. Cordis Corporation Read More
  • Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo Read More
  • Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi Syntholabo, S.A. et. al Read More
  • View All



  • University of Maryland, J.D., 1995
  • University of Virginia, Chemical Engineering, M.S., 1992
  • Franklin & Marshall College, Chemistry, B.S., 1990

Bar and Court Admissions

  • Maryland
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Registered Patent Attorney: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Professional Organizations

  • New York Intellectual Property Law Association
  • New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association (NJIPLA)