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