Bar Admissions

  • Illinois
  • District of Columbia

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit


  • J.D., University of Michigan Law School, 1996
  • B.A., University of Michigan, 1992
T +1 202.344.4345
F +1 202.344.8300

Martin L. Saad


Martin L. Saad of the firm's Washington, DC office is a member of the intellectual property litigation group. Mr. Saad has experience in all stages of litigation, working primarily on federal cases involving intellectual property, antitrust, advertising, and other commercial matters. He serves clients in many industry sectors, including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and energy, and provides guidance on litigation, government, and media strategies.

Significant Matters

Mr. Saad's recent matters include:
  • Cory R. Maples v. Comm’r of Alabama Dept. of Corrections, Appeal No. 15-14586 (11th Cir.) – assisted in preparation of amicus brief on behalf of petitioner challenging constitutionality of sentencing proceedings in death penalty case.
  • TAS Energy, Inc. v. Stellar Energy Americas, Inc., No. 8:14-cv-03145-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fl.), and TAS Energy Inc. v. Direct Energy Inc., No. 4:15-cv-00512 (S.D. Tex.) – defense of patent litigations brought by competitor of client relating to systems designed to improve the efficiency of utility-scale power generation facilities. Successful defense of two preliminary injunction motions. Cases stayed pending outcome of inter partes reviews challenging all asserted claims.
  • Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA and Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 2012 WL 5914516 (D.D.C. May 8, 2012), aff’d per curiam (DC Cir. 2013) – brand name manufacturer challenged FDA approval of ANDAs for topical skin products and sought injunction against the sale of the generic products.  The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of FDA and our client.  The DC Circuit affirmed the District Court rulings per curiam on appeal.
  • Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012) – assisted in preparation of amicus brief submitted on behalf of BIO and PhRMA for the Federal Circuit’s en banc review of prior decision involving intervening rights following post-grant patent proceeding by USPTO.
  • Whiting v. AARP et al., 637 F.3d 355 (DC Cir. 2011) – consumer class action seeking damages for alleged false advertising of health care insurance. Case dismissed against client AARP by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia prior to any discovery and affirmed on appeal by the DC Circuit.
  • Bavarian Nordic A/S v. Acambis Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35343 (D. Del., May 15, 2007) – patent, trade secret, unfair competition, and tortious conversion action relating to virus underlying smallpox vaccine. Summary judgment on all claims, involving misappropriation of virus and unfair competition, before federal district court.
  • Gemmy Industries Corp. v. Chrisha Creations, Ltd., 452 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2006) – patent validity, false marking, false advertising matter involving inflatable lawn decorations. Successful Federal Circuit appeal of lower court invalidity decision upon becoming counsel.
  • Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars LP, 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005) – trademark and trade dress action involving shape of single-cutaway electric guitar. Successful Sixth Circuit appeal obtaining reversal of summary judgment against client PRS and grant of summary judgment in PRS’s favor. Supreme Court review declined.
  • Dickson v. Microsoft, Compaq, et al., 309 F.3d 193 (4th Cir. 2002) – federal class action antitrust matter involving allegations of illegal monopoly and conspiracy against Microsoft and leading personal computer OEMs. Case dismissed on the pleadings by federal district court; dismissal upheld on appeal by Fourth Circuit.
  • Wal-Mart v. Samara, 120 S.Ct. 1339 (2000) – trade dress, copyright, and unfair competition matter involving children’s clothing designs. District court decision appealed to Second Circuit and Supreme Court. Unanimous Supreme Court decision adopting new standard for product configuration trade dress and reversing unfavorable lower court decision.
  • Nike Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, 138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) – substantial reduction in design patent award following prior successful appeal to Federal Circuit on remedies issue. Favorable lower court remand judgment upheld by Federal Circuit. Supreme Court review declined.