Michael is a highly regarded intellectual property litigator and patent strategist who helps clients protect and generate revenue from their patent holdings. Intellectual Asset Magazine has repeatedly recognized him in its select IAM Patent 1000 and IAM Patent Strategy 300 publications. Clients rely on his counsel regarding sensitive licensing agreement negotiations, acquisitions, and other technology transactions. He leads a team known for its ability to translate complex technology and its value to non-technical professionals — in court and business negotiations.
Michael is Division Head for the Intellectual Property Section at Mintz and serves as a member on the firm’s Policy Committee. He is an experienced litigator known for his business approach to creating value in patent assets. His success on behalf of clients comes from his ability to identify the value drivers in a portfolio and communicate that value to competitors, investors, purchasers, licensees, counsel, judges, and juries.
With a background in mechanical engineering and nearly 20 years’ experience practicing law, he has the combination of technical and legal skills essential to a strategic patent practice. He has achieved courtroom victories and negotiated favorable settlements on behalf of both patent owners and accused infringers in complex negotiations and protracted litigation.
Michael develops strategies for and guides clients through monetization programs for complex technology portfolios. Several recent monetization programs have each returned tens of millions of dollars through litigation, licensing, and sale activities.
Michael also advises clients on patent portfolio assessment and conducts IP due diligence in connection with transactions. He counsels private equity firms and venture capital funds on IP assets and patent value. He also helps patent owners develop and implement strategies for identifying and leveraging untapped assets in their patent portfolios.
He has particularly deep experience litigating Section 337 matters before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and has also achieved significant success in Federal District Courts, including the Eastern District of Texas, District of Delaware, Northern District of California, District of Massachusetts, and numerous others.
Michael’s technology experience includes electromechanical systems, digital cameras, embedded microprocessors, telecommunications and network software, cellular phones, and e-commerce, among others.
Michael rejoined Mintz from Pepper Hamilton LLP in 2012.
- University of Connecticut (JD)
- Duke University (BS, Mechanical Engineering)
Federal Circuit Appeals
- Preservation Wellness Technologies LLC v. NextGen Healthcare Information Systems LLC, et al, 2016-2193, 2016-2194, 2016-2195 (Fed. Cir.) - Successfully argued at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to affirm an Eastern District of Texas ruling from May 2016 that held unpatentable a medical records patent asserted by Preservation Wellness against long-time client NextGen Healthcare. Mintz Levin also argued on behalf of co-appellees Allscripts Healthcare Solutions Inc. and Epic Systems Corp. NextGen Healthcare provides electronic health record, financial, and health information exchange solutions for myriad healthcare organizations and the infringement allegations threatened “Patient Portal,” a key component of the company’s service.
- Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O, 2015-1212, (Fed. Cir.) - Represented Straight Path IP in successfully appealing to the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) the adverse result of an inter partes review handled by another firm. The IPR decision cancelled all challenged claims of Straight Path’s US Patent No. 6,108,704. In the Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU SRO appeal, the CAFC for the first time completely reversed an adverse IPR decision, remanding the matter for further proceedings under the correct construction advocated by Mintz Levin and Straight Path.
Federal District Court
- Preservation Wellness Technologies, LLC v. NextGen Healthcare Information Systems, LLC, 2:15-cv-01562 (EDTX) – U.S. Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson presided over the case, granting Mintz client NextGen’s motion to dismiss after oral argument in April 2017. Judge Bryson held that Preservation Wellness’ patent at issue covers nothing more than the basic concept of a medical records system, which he said is not patent-eligible under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice decision. Mintz represented NextGen on the appeal at the CAFC and the decision was upheld.
- Virnetx v. Mitel Networks Corp., et al. (EDTX, 6:11-cv-18) – Defended our client, the US division of a Germany-based global manufacturing concern, in a patent infringement action relating to secure network communications. Filed in January 2011, favorable settlement was achieved for our client in February 2013. Virnetx had previously scored a $368 million verdict against Apple and a $105 million verdict against Microsoft (Microsoft later settled with Virnetx for $200 million).
- EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Skyguard LLC, et al. (EDTX, 6:11-cv-15) – Represented the defendant in this multi-patent infringement case relating to vending management communication modules. Filed in June 2011, the case was settled very favorably after 18 months of litigation. EON has fairly aggressively enforced its patent rights. Among its targets have been some of the largest and most successful technology companies, including Apple, LG, Pantech, Honeywell, RIM, T-Mobile, and more. In some instances, EON has extracted high settlements from these organizations.
- Presqriber , LLC v. Partners Healthcare System, Inc. (EDTX, 6:14cv00873) – Represented the defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit relating to interactive medications ordering software. Resulted in a favorable settlement for the client.
International Trade Commission
- Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-1089) Represent Complainant Netlist, Inc., a California memory module company, in the ITC asserting six patents against the Korean-based memory giant SK hynix. The technology claimed by the asserted patents is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards, which are implemented by the accused imported products. The respondents are asserting novel RAND defenses in the ITC, and in a co-pending case involving the same patents in the District Court for the Central District of California. The ITC evidentiary hearing is scheduled for November 2018.
- Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1044) - Represented Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) as complainant in the ITC asserting patents covering graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets. Respondents include LG Electronics, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs, Inc. (SDI). Achieved settlement with LG prior to the conclusion of expert discovery. Following the evidentiary hearing, the presiding ALJ issued an initial determination finding a violation of Section 337 and recommending the imposition of an exclusion order against the remaining Respondents’ accused products. The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s finding of a violation on August 22, 2018. As a result, the Commission issued orders banning the importation of products made by VIZIO, MediaTek, and SDI and cease and desist orders against VIZIO and SDI, subject to a 60-day presidential review period.
- Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) - Represented owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents as Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of automotive manufacturers, and infotainment system and chip suppliers. Respondents include Honda, Toyota, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments, Renesas, Harman International, and Fujitsu-Ten. The investigation instituted in January of 2016 and resolved favorably prior to the conclusion of expert discovery in August of 2016.
- Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) - Represented owner of portfolio of communications and computing patents from former enterprise communications business unit of large multinational innovation company. An ITC investigation was instituted in August 2014 as to respondent entities Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and HTC Corporation. Google participated as an intervenor. The investigation resolved prior to evidentiary hearing in June of 2015.
- Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884) - Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC. Investigation was instituted in June 2013 and among the respondent entities were Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, and ZTE. Most respondents settled. After an evidentiary hearing held over several days in May 2014, on August 29, 2014 Mintz Levin successfully obtained a recommendation for a Limited Exclusion Order against the remaining respondent, which chose to settle while Commission review of the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination was pending.
- Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) - Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC, and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Cases were filed between late 2011 and early 2012, and all were resolved by the end of January 2013. The technology at issue relates to LCD panels, central processor units, graphics processing units, and other microprocessor technology. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space – Apple, LG, Research in Motion, Samsung, and Sony.
- Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-804) – Represented the complainant (plaintiff) that makes LED lighting systems for use in film and TV production, at the International Trade Commission. The ITC handed down its Final Initial Determination of infringement on September 7, 2012. On January 17, 2013, the ITC issued a General Exclusion Order (GEO) against respondents based in both China and the United States. The result in this case is particularly notable because it is rare for the ITC to issue a GEO due to the rigorous criteria and careful balancing of interests that apply to requests for GEOs.
- Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (337-TA-726) - Represented complainant in this three-patent ITC case. Filed in June 2010 against converged device manufacturers and focused on digital camera technology found in cell phones, laptop computers, and personal digital assistants, the matter was fully settled in April 2011. The result was successful licensing programs with three out of four respondents, among which are recognized leaders in the electronics device manufacturing space – HTC, LG, Research in Motion, and more.
Inter Partes Reviews
- Defense of Multiple IPRs – Point-to-Point Communication Over Computer Networks – Currently representing Straight Path IP Group in the defense of seventeen inter partes reviews filed against three U.S. patents concerning technology for facilitating point-to-point communications over computer networks. Petitioners include Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Cisco Systems, Inc.; Avaya Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.; Toshiba Corp.; VIZIO, Inc.; Verizon Communications, Inc.; and Hulu, LLC.
- Successful Defense of 12 IPRs – Three dimensional structure memory - Mintz Levin represented Elm 3DS Innovations in a series of 14 IPRs filed by leading technology companies, including SK Hynix, Micron, and Samsung. We were hired as replacement counsel following institution of the IPRs which had been filed in late 2015 and early 2016. Final Written decisions in 13 of the proceedings were received in June and August 2017 and confirmed validity of all but two challenged claims.
Trade Secrets Litigation
- New England Biolabs et al v. Enzymatics, 1:12-cv-12125 (D. Mass) – Defended Enzymatics against claims of trade secrets theft and patent infringement brought by three plaintiffs in a case involving nucleic acid ligands. Resulted in favorable settlement for our client.
- L3 Communications Security and Detection Systems, Inc. v. Reveal Imaging Technologies, Inc., 1:04-cv-11884 (D. Mass) – Represented Reveal, a start- up technology company in parallel trade secret and patent infringement cases concerning methods and apparatus for scanning explosives in baggage. Following extensive discovery and summary judgment hearings in the proceedings, the cases settled favorably to Reveal.
Recognition & Awards
- Selected for the 2015 – 2018 editions of IAM Strategy 300 – The World's Leading IP Strategists
- Identified in the IAM Patent 1000, a listing of the “World’s Leading Patent Practitioners,” as a “go-to attorney for technology patent litigation"
- Included on the Managing Intellectual Property: Patent star - Massachusetts list (2018)
- Chambers USA: Massachusetts – Intellectual Property (2015 – 2017)
- Recognized by The Legal 500 United States for Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation - International Trade Commission (2017-2018)
- Included on the Super Lawyers Top 100 Attorneys in Massachusetts list (2016)
- Included on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers – Intellectual Property Litigation list (2007, 2011 – 2017)
- International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association