Michael Levy concentrates his practice on patent litigation, client counseling, opinion work, due diligence, portfolio management and patent prosecution in the pharmaceutical, drug delivery, medical device, and chemical process fields.
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.
- 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.)
- “Over a Year Later, the Akamai Decision is Still in the Cross-Hairs,” Bloomberg BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, January 24, 2014.