Skip to main content

Michael J. McNamara

Member

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1884

Share:

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.

Experience

Federal District Court

  • Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple, Inc. et al, 6:19-cv-00432, -00433, -00438, -00437, -00454 (W.D.Tex.)- Represent plaintiff in a patent infringement case involving robust voice browser system and voice activated device controller.
  • Innovative Foundry Technologies LLC v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, et al., 6:19-cv-00719 (W.D. Tex) - Represented Plaintiff in enforcing 4 patents related to semiconductor manufacturing technology. The case proceeded through Markman hearing where claims were construed favorably in all four patents and a “not invalid” determination issue in response to an attempt to invalidate one patent entirely. All claims between IFT and SMIC have been confidentially settled.
  • Represented Advanced Micro Devices in multiple federal district cases running parallel with a complaint filed in the ITC. The patented technology covers graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets. Defendants included LG, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs. LG settled and the remaining defendants has Limited Exclusion Orders and Cease & Desist letters issued by the ITC in August 2018.
  • Vtrax Technologies Licensing, Inc. v. Siemens Communications, Inc., et al (S.D. Fl.- 9:10-cv-80369) – 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

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same (337-TA-1222) – Represented DivX, a video codec company headquartered in San Diego, in enforcing patents before the ITC in the District of Delaware. The asserted patents involve innovations relating to digital rights management and streaming media. LG and Samsung settled after the Markman order was issued, leaving TCL as the sole remaining respondent. Shortly after the seven day evidentiary hearing held in July 2021, one of the two principal suppliers of the accused streaming technology to TCL, namely Roku, stepped in and took a license to DivX’s portfolio, thus partially resolving DivX’s claims against TCL. Prior to the court issuing a decision on the merits, DivX and TCL entered into a bilateral settlement agreement resolving DivX’s remaining claims against TCl and bringing an end to all pending litigation.
  • Certain Semiconductor Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof (II) (337-TA-1177) - Represented GlobalFoundries at the International Trade Commission and in multiple Western District of Texas actions, involving the direct and indirect infringement of four patents related to semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, and products containing the same. Additional defendants in these actions included Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, nVidia, Arista, Asus, and Lenovo. Within 2.5 months of filing at the ITC, the cases settled on favorable terms.
  • 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.
  • Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) – Represented owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents, Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, 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, Enterprise System Technologies, S.A.R.L. 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 Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-892) - Representing complainant in 3-patent litigation involving streaming media technology at the International Trade Commission and in parallel case in the Eastern District of Texas. Respondents/defendants include some of the most recognized global electronics manufacturers, a number of which have settled resulting in the closing of the ITC case.
  • 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 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.
Read less

viewpoints

DOJ Breaking with Big Tech Approach to SEPs

June 13, 2022 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Michael McNamara, Michael Renaud, James Thomson

Read more

Open Question: Use of Stolen Trade Secrets May or May Not Qualify as a Predicate Act Under RICO

March 10, 2022 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Michael McNamara, Nicholas Armington, Oliver Ennis

Read more

Discretion Retained: USPTO Dodges Attack from Big Tech to Rein in Discretionary IPR Denials

November 22, 2021 | Blog | By Michael McNamara, Daniel Weinger

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently thwarted an attempt by big tech companies such as Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel, to rid themselves of discretionary denials under the Fintiv factors. While these companies will almost assuredly seek other avenues to dismantle such discretionary denials, last week’s developments are a win for patent owners in the short term.
Read more
Mintz is recognized as among the top ten firms in ITC Section 337 litigation by Patexia in its inaugural "ITC Intelligence Report". We are pleased to be among the firms included in this publication and thrilled that it has come on the heels of a great year at the ITC for the Mintz team.
Read more

Supreme Court Rejects USPTO Attorney Fee Policy

December 17, 2019 | Blog | By Michael McNamara, Sean Casey

On December 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) controversial policy of shifting attorneys’ fees in Peter v. NantKwest, Case No. 18-801. The Court ruled that the USPTO policy ran counter to the long-accepted “American Rule,” which says “[e]ach litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.”
Read more

With the U.K.’s Announcement, the European Unified Patent Court Moves Toward Realization

December 7, 2016 | Advisory | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Michael McNamara, Robert Moore

On November 28, 2016, Baroness Neville Rolfe, the United Kingdom Minister of State for Intellectual Property, announced that the U.K. would ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), paving the way for the European Unified Patent Court (UPC).
Read more

“Processing System” Does Not Render Claims Indefinite

September 29, 2016 | Blog | By Michael McNamara, Michael Renaud

The Federal Circuit relied on Nautilus to preserve functional language of a method claim in a decision published last Friday.  In Cox Comm, Inc. v. Sprint, No. 2016-1013, the Federal Circuit held that the term “processing system” did not render the asserted claims indefinite.
Read more

A New Hope for Software Patents?

June 2, 2016 | Blog | By Michael McNamara

Software patents have been facing intense scrutiny under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for subject matter eligibility since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision in 2014.  In the last two years, the patent ecosystem (including USPTO examiners, PTAB, U.S. district courts, and the Federal Circuit) is generally considered unfavorable and sometimes hostile to software patents.
Read more

Newsflash, Politico: 'Patent Death Squad' Alive and Well

June 24, 2015 | Blog | By Michael McNamara

Politico, the popular political journalism publication, recently ran the story “Patent Reform Advocates: PTO Process Not Patent ‘Death Squad.’” The story was based on a blog post by patent reform advocate Unified Patents.
Read more
September 16, 2014, marked the two year anniversary since certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act went into effect, including post-grant Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Read more
Read less

News & Press

Press Release Thumbnail
BOSTON- Mintz has once again been recognized as one of the most active and high-performing International Trade Commission (ITC) law firms in the Patexia 2024 ITC Intelligence Report.
Press Release Thumbnail
BOSTON – Mintz has been recognized as one of the most active and high-performing International Trade Commission (ITC) law firms in the Patexia 2023 ITC Intelligence Report.
News Thumbnail
Law360 reported that Mintz client American video codec company DivX, an early innovator in the digital streaming video and digital rights management scene, has reached confidential settlements with LG and Samsung, resolving international litigation claiming they infringe DivX’s streaming patents with their smart televisions. The Mintz team representing DivX is led by Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud and Member Adam Rizk and includes Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Matthew Hurley, Members Keith Carroll, Marguerite McConihe, Michael McNamara, Samuel Davenport, and Daniel Weinger, and Associates Matthew Karambelas, Jessica Perry, and Nana Liu.
This feature story notes wireless communications company ParkerVision’s request to lift a pause in its lawsuit with Apple, LG, and Qualcomm over several smartphone patents. James Wodarski, Michael McNamara, Kristina Cary, and Daniel Weinger are representing ParkerVision in the case.
This article notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has upheld the validity of two Straight Path patents in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.’s review.
Read less

Recognition & Awards

  • Ranked by Patexia among the Most Active ITC Attorneys Representing Complainants (2024)

  • Ranked by Patexia among the Best Performing ITC Attorneys Representing Complainants (2024)

Read less