Michael A. Sitzman

I'll research this attorney's background and verify the case details.

Let me verify the notable case outcomes and PTAB experience.

Michael A. Sitzman — partner, McDermott Will & Emery / McDermott Will & Schulte, San Francisco. He is a life sciences patent litigator, not a general IP or standards-essential-patent practitioner: his practice centers on Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation and biologic/drug patent disputes, with reported experience in recombinant DNA, CAR-T, glycobiology, antisense and immunological technologies. He is consistently described as a first-chair trial lawyer. There is no indication in his bio or tracked cases of Wi-Fi/SEP, software or mechanical work.

Side of the "v." The tracked data shows 4 plaintiff-side and 3 defendant-side appearances, but the distinction is more nominal than real. The three defense-side entries are the Padagis US LLC v. Neurelis, Inc. matters — the PTAB proceedings in which Padagis is petitioner and Sitzman serves as lead counsel for patent owner Neurelis, i.e., the respondent. All four Neurelis plaintiff-side entries are ANDA suits where he represents the brand/innovator patent owner. Net effect: his practice is overwhelmingly patentee/brand-side, representing innovator pharmaceutical companies rather than generic filers or operating-company defendants.

Firm context. He joined McDermott in or around November 2024 (San Francisco), after serving as a partner and US chair of life sciences patent litigation at DLA Piper (from 2019); DLA Piper's announcement states he joined from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and Super Lawyers/California bar records list him at Gibson Dunn previously. His California bar profile confirms a long San Francisco practice (admitted December 1991).

Notable matters. In the tracked set, he is lead counsel for Neurelis in the Valtoco® (diazepam nasal spray) ANDA litigation against Padagis, Lupin and Amneal in D. Del. (consolidated actions before Judge Noreika; bench trial scheduled 2027), and lead counsel for Neurelis as patent owner in the parallel IPRs. Separately, his firm bio credits him with a Hatch-Waxman win for Taiho Oncology/Taiho Pharmaceutical on LONSURF®, complete relief for Acorda Therapeutics against Alkermes in arbitration and SDNY under Brulotte, and an ITC exclusion order for Allergan against Daewoong/Evolus in the BOTOX® botulinum-toxin dispute. BIO and firm materials also describe him as one of the chief architects of Novo Nordisk's strategy in the Supreme Court's first substantive Hatch-Waxman decision (the specific case name is not stated in the sources reviewed, so I have not named it).

PTAB/IPR. Yes — he is lead counsel in instituted IPR proceedings (IPR2025-00464/-465/-466, instituted September 2025), where he filed the patent owner preliminary responses and related motions practice. Note that in the related earlier Aquestive v. Neurelis IPR over U.S. Patent 9,763,876, the patent was invalidated; his name does not appear as counsel of record on that petition, so I would not attribute that result to him.

Bar/education. J.D., University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law (1991, Order of the Coif); B.S., UC Davis (molecular genetics). Admitted in California and before the USPTO (Reg. No. 42,150), the Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, Ninth Circuit and D.C. Circuit.

A caveat on sourcing: the practice descriptions above come from firm and ranking-profile material (McDermott, Chambers, Legal 500, BIO) and are largely self-reported; the case-level detail is drawn from public dockets and PTAB filings.