professionalIMG

Michael J. McNamara

Member vCard


Education

  • George Washington University (JD)
  • Tufts University (BS, Electrical Engineering, magna cum laude)

Bar Admissions

  • Massachusetts
  • New York
  • United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office
  • US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

Michael’s practice focuses on patent litigation in the areas of technology and communication networks. He has significant experience in transactional matters including patent drafting and prosecution, managing and analyzing patent portfolios, and license negotiation.

Michael has worked in all areas of patent litigation in matters regarding cellular and landline telephone systems, fiber optic systems, liquid crystal display technology, Internet and search engine technology, and on-demand video content. He also has particular experience in cases involving electrical systems, solid state devices, optical systems, semiconductor fabrication, computers, software, and communication networks.

Prior to joining the firm, Michael practiced with a national law firm and an international law firm. Additionally, he has designed call center systems for AT&T as a telephone systems consultant before he attended law school.

Representative Matters

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (DN 3194) Filed an ITC complaint on behalf of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). The patented technology covers graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets.  Respondents include LG, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs.

  • 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 former Silicon Graphics 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. 

Federal District Courts 

  • Virnetx v. Mitel Networks Corp., et al (E.D. Tex. - 6:11cv18) – 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).
  • Enterasys Networks, Inc., v. Foundry Networks, LLC, et al (D. Mass. - 1:05cv11298) – Represented plaintiff asserting four patents relating to networking technology (switches, LAN networking). Filed in 2005, action settled favorably in 2013 after Markman hearing and prior to trial.
  • Vtrax Technologies Licensing, Inc. v. Siemens Communications, Inc., et al (S.D. Fl.- 9:10cv80369) – Successfully defended our client, the US division of a Germany-based global manufacturing concern, an insurance carrier and a large national bank, in a patent infringement action relating to unified communications and related technologies. Case filed in March 2010 against various enterprise systems, obtained dismissal of case for our clients in June 2011.
  • Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Teles AG  (D. Del.– 1:09cv224) Represented Cisco Systems, Inc. in multiple cases and reexaminations concerning VoIP patents; won summary judgment
  • Mayfair Wireless, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.( D. Del – 1:10cv1102) Represented a defendant in a dispute involving telephony; won motion to dismiss for lack of standing
  • JDSU Corporation and Emcore Corp. v. Optium Corp., now Finisar Corp. (W. D. Pa. – 2:07cv326) Overall responsibility for management of a patent dispute involving optic transmission equipment; case went to trial and is currently subject to arbitration
  • Consumers Interstate Corporation v. W.B. Mason Co., Inc. (D. Conn. –3:06cv174) – Overall responsibility for management of a patent dispute involving web technology
  • Freedom Wireless, Inc. v. AT&T, Alltel Wireless, Inc., Cricket Comm. Inc. (E. D. Tex. –2:06cv504) Represented the plaintiff in a patent dispute involving prepaid wireless technology
  • Ericsson Inc, et al v. Freedom Wireless, Inc / Freedom Wireless v. AT&T (D. Ariz. – 2:06cv1935) Represented an appellant in an appeal to Federal Circuit; settled on positive terms after completion of briefing
  • Overture Services, Inc. v. FindWhat.com, Inc. (C. D. Cal. – 8:03cv685) Represented a defendant through a hung jury verdict and eventual settlement