Michael C. Newman

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Michael C. Newman — patent litigation summary

Focus areas. Newman's practice centers on patent and IP disputes in complex technologies, with an unusual breadth: integrated circuits and semiconductor fabrication/packaging, LEDs, microprocessors (CPU/GPU), DSPs, memory modules (RDIMM/LRDIMM), networking equipment, cellular communications and VoIP, video compression, computer software, medical devices, mechanical devices, and "converged" consumer electronics — plus chemistry and life-science capabilities (carbohydrate chemistry, gene expression, genetically engineered bacteria, biochemistry/biotech) reflecting earlier biochemical research. His own firm biography flags Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission as the practice's center of gravity, with related federal court, trade secret, and Federal Circuit appellate work. (Sources: Mintz attorney profile; National Law Review author page.)

Side preference. Both sides, weighted toward patent owners. The tracked list is split evenly — one plaintiff-side and one defendant-side appearance — and his publicly described PTAB work is predominantly on behalf of patent owners challenging institution or defending claims, while his ITC docket includes both complainants and respondents. He is not identifiable as a volume NPE-side filer. One caveat: the tracked plaintiff-side entry (RealTime Data, LLC v. Acronis) is not corroborated by the public D. Mass. docket for that case (1:17-cv-11279), which lists Russ August & Kabat, Ward Smith & Hill, and other counsel for RealTime Data and other defense counsel for Acronis; I could not verify Mintz or Newman as counsel of record there. The matter ended by stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in January 2024, with no merits finding. His defendant-side tracked entry (Unified Patents LLC v. —) is consistent with PTAB records showing him appearing pro hac vice in Unified Patents Inc. v. GE Video Compression (IPR2019-00726), i.e., for the patent owner.

Firm context, bar, education. He is a Member in the Intellectual Property Section of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. (Boston), elevated to Member in 2015. Before Mintz he practiced at Pepper Hamilton LLP and Fish & Richardson P.C., and he has worked as a software engineer. He is a member of the Massachusetts bar (admitted 2006; Mass. Bar No. 667520) and, per a 2020 PTAB pro hac vice declaration, is admitted before the Federal and First Circuits, the District of Massachusetts, and the Eastern District of Texas. Super Lawyers lists a 2006 J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law.

Notable matters and PTAB experience. He is a regular PTAB practitioner, both as patent-owner counsel and as a petitioner/defendant-side attorney, with pro hac vice appearances spanning Straight Path, Elm 3DS, Intellectual Ventures, Infobridge, Nanoco (IPR2021-00185), and a Jennewein Biotechnologie PGR. His most cited result is Straight Path IP Group v. Sipnet EU SRO (Fed. Cir. 2015), where Mintz persuaded the Federal Circuit to completely reverse and remand an adverse IPR final written decision cancelling all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 — described by the firm as the first such complete reversal. He also defended a 17-petition IPR cluster against three Straight Path patents (Samsung, Cisco, Avaya, LG, Verizon, Hulu, and others). ITC highlights include Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices (337-TA-804), where the Commission issued a rare general exclusion order; a complete respondent victory after a nine-day trial in 337-TA-621 (probe cards); and a win for Glycosyn LLC in Certain Human Milk Oligosaccharides (337-TA-1120). He writes and speaks on PTAB practice (Mintz's "Surviving an Instituted IPR" series; commentary on Thryv v. Click-to-Call, Arthrex, and Samsung v. Prisua) and has been listed in IAM Strategy 300.