Practice Areas
FinTech
Global Litigation
IP Due Diligence
ITC Litigation
Intellectual Property
Patent & Trade Secret Litigation
Trademark & Copyright Protection
Admissions
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
New York
Education
New York University School of Law - J.D., 2012, cum laude
University of California - Berkeley - B.A., 2009
|
Profile
Michael is a special counsel in Cadwalader’s Intellectual Property and Global Litigation Groups. Michael handles patent litigation in a variety of technology areas, including medical devices, cybersecurity, content management and document retention, wireless telecommunications, consumer products, and computer hardware and software. He represents clients in patent infringement lawsuits filed in U.S. district courts, including the District of Delaware, Western and Eastern Districts of Texas, and Northern and Southern Districts of California, as well as in the United States International Trade Commission. Michael also represents clients in appeals to the Federal Circuit and other appellate courts.
Michael is experienced in all stages of litigation, including pre-suit investigations, fact and expert discovery, dispositive motion practice and trial. Michael also counsels clients with respect to IP licensing and transactions, offensive and defensive patent analyses, standards essential patents, and invalidity and noninfringement opinions.
Michael was included in the 2023 and 2024 editions of the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for his work in Patent Law and Patent Litigation. Michael was also recognized in the Legal Media Group’s 2021 and 2022 “Rising Stars” Expert Guides series.
Prior to law school, Michael attended the University of California, Berkeley, where he majored in molecular and cell biology, with an emphasis in neurobiology.
Michael earned his J.D., cum laude, from New York University School of Law. During law school, he interned for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and also served as notes editor for the NYU Environmental Law Journal. He is admitted to practice in New York, as well as before the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. He is also a member of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association.
Experience
Representative Matters
- Open Text Corp. v. Hyland UK Operations Limited (W.D. Tex. 2020); Open Text Corp. v. Hyland Software, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2020): Defending Hyland UK (f/k/a Alfresco Software, Ltd.) and Hyland in five patent infringement cases about enterprise content management software. Succeeded in transferring the Hyland UK cases under Section 1404 from the Western District of Texas (Albright, J.) to the Central District of California. Special Master in the Hyland cases has recommended invalidating two of the asserted patents as ineligible under Section 101.
- TriOptima Ltd. v. Quantile Technologies, Ltd. (E.D. Tex., P.T.A.B.): Represented Quantile in the Eastern District of Texas against allegations of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Also represented Quantile in accompanying covered business method review at the USPTO. District court case was dismissed on Quantile’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Covered business method review resulted in the invalidation of all claims and the rejection of two separate motions to amend claims by TriOptima.
- C. R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., (D. Del. 2015): Defended AngioDynamics from the pleading stage through trial against allegations of patent infringement relating to vascular access port medical devices. At trial, Plaintiff Bard sought upwards of $200m in damages but suffered a complete defense victory on all grounds. Following a successful Rule 50(a) motion, the Court issued judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, patent-ineligibility, and no willful infringement.
- C. R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., (D. Utah 2012): Defending AngioDynamics against similar charges of patent infringement in an earlier litigation filed by Bard in Utah.
- Certain Beverage Dispensing Systems and Components Thereof (U.S.I.T.C. 2018): Defending Anheuser-Busch InBev in the ITC against allegations of patent infringement relating to beer dispensing devices.
- Brother Int’l Corp (Various Districts): Representing Brother in numerous litigations filed in E.D. Texas, D. Delaware, and C.D. California concerning printer, scanner, and computer products.
- Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp (S.D.N.Y 2000): Representing Plaintiff Convolve in long-running patent infringement litigation concerning disc drive technology. Case spawned the now-overturned Seagate standard for willful infringement and two further appeals to the Federal Circuit, which most recently overturned a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.
- Orca Health, Inc. v. 3D4Medical Ltd. (D. Utah 2017): Defended 3D4Medical against multiple claims, including patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. After filing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on patent-ineligibility grounds, Plaintiff Orca dropped one of its two patents. Concurrently filed one of the first transfer motions predicated on TC Heartland. Case settled favorably during the pleading stage.
- Adaptix Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2012): Defended AT&T Mobility against allegations of patent infringement related to 4G/LTE wireless networks. District court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of all seven asserted patent claims from the two patents-in-suit on January 20, 2015, and, further, invalidated four of those seven patent claims in a separate opinion on January 23, 2015.
- ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., (N.D. Fla. 2011): Represented Qualcomm in multi-patent infringement case related to RF receivers and baseband processing.
|
