{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":null,"value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"13","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"R","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442861,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6117,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLazar Raynal is an internationally recognized, preeminent trial lawyer and a proud Fellow of both the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. Lazar provides legal counsel to clients on a wide array of fiduciary and complex commercial and other litigation, including having tried cases concerning patents, fiduciary disputes, breach of contract, fraud, long-term supply agreements, challenged business practices. Lazar manages of litigation across U.S. and non-U.S. jurisdictions.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLazar also has tried a variety of criminal cases and led numerous internal investigations for clients in response to governmental investigations and civil suits. He has also represented some of the wealthiest families and well-known private businesses in the world.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLazar has been widely recognized for his representation of clients in various state and federal trial and appellate courts, and before dozens of arbitration panels throughout the United States by various leading publications. He enjoys trying cases and also is dedicated to assisting clients with strategic planning and resolving significant disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lazar-raynal","email":"lraynal@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eLead trial lawyer for Skillz Inc. in unfair competition lawsuits in New York and obtained successful verdict in patent trial in San Jose.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent Victory Park Capital Advisors, LLC in connection with litigation in Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent Project44 in litigation in Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial lawyers for successful trial verdict in favor of client Jennifer Goldwasser in substantial trust case filed in Los Angeles.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented AI business Tractable Inc. in connection with computer fraud, trade secrets, and trademark infringement matter with antitrust counterclaims in Northern District of Illinois.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented DJO in connection with its defense of the patent infringement lawsuit brought by in the Southern District of California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended companies in class actions alleging violations of Biometric Privacy legislation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended patent cases, including allegations of patent infringement and improper patent markings relating to medical and mechanical devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for complex business termination disputes and international arbitrations, including a jury trial for one of the largest liquor industry disputes for Diageo North America, defending against claims in excess of $200 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel and secured a complete defense verdict on behalf of Celanese Corporation, a leading producer of chemicals and fibers, against breach of contract and fraud allegations seeking approximately $4 billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in significant cases across California, including patent disputes, tax challenges, insurance coverage, trust and fiduciary litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the Board of Directors of FirstMerit Corp. in response to a class action lawsuit arising from the merger with Huntington Bancshares. The class action lawsuit was brought by FirstMerit shareholders who claimed the directors of FirstMerit agreed to unfair terms in the merger with Huntington.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead many trust restructurings and significant trust related disputes for large family businesses held in U.S. and foreign trusts, including representation of heiress Liesel Pritzker in widely publicized suit against trustees for breaches of fiduciary duty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead attorney for significant insurance industry investigations and coverage disputes, including winning judgment for Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company against a medical device manufacturer in a coverage dispute worth approximately $200 million, successfully defending various insurance companies in nationwide investigations and lawsuits related to business practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Orbitz Worldwide in tax litigation in many various jurisdictions across the United States.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1153,"guid":"1153.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Raynal","nick_name":"Lazar","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Lazar","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2278,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1988-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named by Best Lawyers in America in the category of Commercial Litigation (Chicago, IL)","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Named Local Litigation Star in the area of Commercial","detail":"Benchmark Litigation"},{"title":"Citywealth Leaders List Leading Lawyer in North America","detail":"USA"},{"title":"Martindale Hubbell ","detail":"AV rated"},{"title":"Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Chicago, IL ","detail":"Super Lawyers Illinois"},{"title":"Named Fab Fifty Young Litigators","detail":"American Lawyer, 2007"},{"title":"Leading Lawyers In Illinois 2024: Civil Appellate Law","detail":"American Registry"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLazar Raynal is an internationally recognized, preeminent trial lawyer and a proud Fellow of both the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. Lazar provides legal counsel to clients on a wide array of fiduciary and complex commercial and other litigation, including having tried cases concerning patents, fiduciary disputes, breach of contract, fraud, long-term supply agreements, challenged business practices. Lazar manages of litigation across U.S. and non-U.S. jurisdictions.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLazar also has tried a variety of criminal cases and led numerous internal investigations for clients in response to governmental investigations and civil suits. He has also represented some of the wealthiest families and well-known private businesses in the world.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLazar has been widely recognized for his representation of clients in various state and federal trial and appellate courts, and before dozens of arbitration panels throughout the United States by various leading publications. He enjoys trying cases and also is dedicated to assisting clients with strategic planning and resolving significant disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eLead trial lawyer for Skillz Inc. in unfair competition lawsuits in New York and obtained successful verdict in patent trial in San Jose.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent Victory Park Capital Advisors, LLC in connection with litigation in Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent Project44 in litigation in Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial lawyers for successful trial verdict in favor of client Jennifer Goldwasser in substantial trust case filed in Los Angeles.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented AI business Tractable Inc. in connection with computer fraud, trade secrets, and trademark infringement matter with antitrust counterclaims in Northern District of Illinois.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented DJO in connection with its defense of the patent infringement lawsuit brought by in the Southern District of California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended companies in class actions alleging violations of Biometric Privacy legislation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended patent cases, including allegations of patent infringement and improper patent markings relating to medical and mechanical devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for complex business termination disputes and international arbitrations, including a jury trial for one of the largest liquor industry disputes for Diageo North America, defending against claims in excess of $200 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel and secured a complete defense verdict on behalf of Celanese Corporation, a leading producer of chemicals and fibers, against breach of contract and fraud allegations seeking approximately $4 billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in significant cases across California, including patent disputes, tax challenges, insurance coverage, trust and fiduciary litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the Board of Directors of FirstMerit Corp. in response to a class action lawsuit arising from the merger with Huntington Bancshares. The class action lawsuit was brought by FirstMerit shareholders who claimed the directors of FirstMerit agreed to unfair terms in the merger with Huntington.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead many trust restructurings and significant trust related disputes for large family businesses held in U.S. and foreign trusts, including representation of heiress Liesel Pritzker in widely publicized suit against trustees for breaches of fiduciary duty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead attorney for significant insurance industry investigations and coverage disputes, including winning judgment for Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company against a medical device manufacturer in a coverage dispute worth approximately $200 million, successfully defending various insurance companies in nationwide investigations and lawsuits related to business practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Orbitz Worldwide in tax litigation in many various jurisdictions across the United States.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named by Best Lawyers in America in the category of Commercial Litigation (Chicago, IL)","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Named Local Litigation Star in the area of Commercial","detail":"Benchmark Litigation"},{"title":"Citywealth Leaders List Leading Lawyer in North America","detail":"USA"},{"title":"Martindale Hubbell ","detail":"AV rated"},{"title":"Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Chicago, IL ","detail":"Super Lawyers Illinois"},{"title":"Named Fab Fifty Young Litigators","detail":"American Lawyer, 2007"},{"title":"Leading Lawyers In Illinois 2024: Civil Appellate Law","detail":"American Registry"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9092}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:59:03.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:59:03.000Z","searchable_text":"Raynal{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named by Best Lawyers in America in the category of Commercial Litigation (Chicago, IL)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Local Litigation Star in the area of Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Citywealth Leaders List Leading Lawyer in North America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Martindale Hubbell \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AV rated\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Chicago, IL \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers Illinois\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Fab Fifty Young Litigators\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Lawyer, 2007\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyers In Illinois 2024: Civil Appellate Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Registry\"}{{ FIELD }}Lead trial lawyer for Skillz Inc. in unfair competition lawsuits in New York and obtained successful verdict in patent trial in San Jose.{{ FIELD }}Represent Victory Park Capital Advisors, LLC in connection with litigation in Delaware.{{ FIELD }}Represent Project44 in litigation in Delaware.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial lawyers for successful trial verdict in favor of client Jennifer Goldwasser in substantial trust case filed in Los Angeles.{{ FIELD }}Represented AI business Tractable Inc. in connection with computer fraud, trade secrets, and trademark infringement matter with antitrust counterclaims in Northern District of Illinois.{{ FIELD }}Represented DJO in connection with its defense of the patent infringement lawsuit brought by in the Southern District of California.{{ FIELD }}Defended companies in class actions alleging violations of Biometric Privacy legislation.{{ FIELD }}Defended patent cases, including allegations of patent infringement and improper patent markings relating to medical and mechanical devices.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for complex business termination disputes and international arbitrations, including a jury trial for one of the largest liquor industry disputes for Diageo North America, defending against claims in excess of $200 million.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel and secured a complete defense verdict on behalf of Celanese Corporation, a leading producer of chemicals and fibers, against breach of contract and fraud allegations seeking approximately $4 billion in damages.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel in significant cases across California, including patent disputes, tax challenges, insurance coverage, trust and fiduciary litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented the Board of Directors of FirstMerit Corp. in response to a class action lawsuit arising from the merger with Huntington Bancshares. The class action lawsuit was brought by FirstMerit shareholders who claimed the directors of FirstMerit agreed to unfair terms in the merger with Huntington.{{ FIELD }}Lead many trust restructurings and significant trust related disputes for large family businesses held in U.S. and foreign trusts, including representation of heiress Liesel Pritzker in widely publicized suit against trustees for breaches of fiduciary duty.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead attorney for significant insurance industry investigations and coverage disputes, including winning judgment for Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company against a medical device manufacturer in a coverage dispute worth approximately $200 million, successfully defending various insurance companies in nationwide investigations and lawsuits related to business practices.{{ FIELD }}Represented Orbitz Worldwide in tax litigation in many various jurisdictions across the United States.{{ FIELD }}Lazar Raynal is an internationally recognized, preeminent trial lawyer and a proud Fellow of both the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. Lazar provides legal counsel to clients on a wide array of fiduciary and complex commercial and other litigation, including having tried cases concerning patents, fiduciary disputes, breach of contract, fraud, long-term supply agreements, challenged business practices. Lazar manages of litigation across U.S. and non-U.S. jurisdictions. \nLazar also has tried a variety of criminal cases and led numerous internal investigations for clients in response to governmental investigations and civil suits. He has also represented some of the wealthiest families and well-known private businesses in the world.\nLazar has been widely recognized for his representation of clients in various state and federal trial and appellate courts, and before dozens of arbitration panels throughout the United States by various leading publications. He enjoys trying cases and also is dedicated to assisting clients with strategic planning and resolving significant disputes. Partner Named by Best Lawyers in America in the category of Commercial Litigation (Chicago, IL) Best Lawyers in America Named Local Litigation Star in the area of Commercial Benchmark Litigation Citywealth Leaders List Leading Lawyer in North America USA Martindale Hubbell  AV rated Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Chicago, IL  Super Lawyers Illinois Named Fab Fifty Young Litigators American Lawyer, 2007 Leading Lawyers In Illinois 2024: Civil Appellate Law American Registry University of Wisconsin  University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Illinois Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers Chicago Inn of Court Fellow, International Academy of Trial Lawyers University of Notre Dame Law School, Dean’s Circle U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Federal Defender Program Panel Pat Tillman Foundation Lead trial lawyer for Skillz Inc. in unfair competition lawsuits in New York and obtained successful verdict in patent trial in San Jose. Represent Victory Park Capital Advisors, LLC in connection with litigation in Delaware. Represent Project44 in litigation in Delaware. Lead trial lawyers for successful trial verdict in favor of client Jennifer Goldwasser in substantial trust case filed in Los Angeles. Represented AI business Tractable Inc. in connection with computer fraud, trade secrets, and trademark infringement matter with antitrust counterclaims in Northern District of Illinois. Represented DJO in connection with its defense of the patent infringement lawsuit brought by in the Southern District of California. Defended companies in class actions alleging violations of Biometric Privacy legislation. Defended patent cases, including allegations of patent infringement and improper patent markings relating to medical and mechanical devices. Served as lead trial counsel for complex business termination disputes and international arbitrations, including a jury trial for one of the largest liquor industry disputes for Diageo North America, defending against claims in excess of $200 million. Served as lead trial counsel and secured a complete defense verdict on behalf of Celanese Corporation, a leading producer of chemicals and fibers, against breach of contract and fraud allegations seeking approximately $4 billion in damages. Served as lead counsel in significant cases across California, including patent disputes, tax challenges, insurance coverage, trust and fiduciary litigation. Represented the Board of Directors of FirstMerit Corp. in response to a class action lawsuit arising from the merger with Huntington Bancshares. The class action lawsuit was brought by FirstMerit shareholders who claimed the directors of FirstMerit agreed to unfair terms in the merger with Huntington. Lead many trust restructurings and significant trust related disputes for large family businesses held in U.S. and foreign trusts, including representation of heiress Liesel Pritzker in widely publicized suit against trustees for breaches of fiduciary duty. Served as lead attorney for significant insurance industry investigations and coverage disputes, including winning judgment for Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company against a medical device manufacturer in a coverage dispute worth approximately $200 million, successfully defending various insurance companies in nationwide investigations and lawsuits related to business practices. Represented Orbitz Worldwide in tax litigation in many various jurisdictions across the United States.","searchable_name":"Lazar P. Raynal","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445989,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5747,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Roth is an accomplished civil litigator whose practice focuses on complex business and entertainment litigation, and cases brought under California\u0026rsquo;s consumer protection laws. He also leads scores of consumer class action matters across California in state and federal courts, and has been hailed as a \"17200 guru\" by clients.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Michael is often called on to represent clients through the appellate process and has obtained successful results on numerous appeals before the federal circuit courts and the California Court of Appeal.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore attending law school, Mr. Roth worked for several years in the music industry as the Director of Alternative Music at an internationally known record label before starting his own independent record company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarketing Mayhem: Recent Supreme Court Decisions \u0026amp; Litigation Trends, August 2020 Marketplace Risk, Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrent State of the Law in Litigation Finance, 2d Annual LF Dealmakers Forum 2019, Panelist\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersonal Jurisdiction Issues After\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBristol-Myers Squibb\u003c/em\u003e, 2018 Bridgeport Class Action Litigation Conference, Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eToo Good to Be True: Sellers Beware of Section 17200\u003c/em\u003e, CLE Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Defense Strikes Back: Litigating Under the anti-SLAPP Statute\u003c/em\u003e, CLE Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJourney to the Center of the Administrative State (or There and Back Again)\u003c/em\u003e, CLE Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConflict? What Conflict?\u003c/em\u003e, CLE Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaissez-Fair Videoconferencing: Remote Witness Testimony and Adversarial Truth\u003c/em\u003e, 48 UCLA Law Review 185 (2000)\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-roth","email":"mroth@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003ePrevailed in an SEC administrative proceeding against a hedge fund alleging that the fund misled investors about its legal finance investments. For his work on the matter, Mr. Roth earned a spot as one of Law360\u0026rsquo;s legal lions for the week of October 18, 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a judgment in the Southern District of New York declaring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its enabling statute unconstitutional in their entirety.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCompelled arbitration in class action brought against cannabis company alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCompelled arbitration in false advertising class action brought against a ride-sharing company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in a nationwide, multimillion-dollar false advertising case brought against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading clothing retailers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a motion to deny class certification in an action against Best Buy, brought by a plaintiff who claimed he did not receive an extra promotional DVD in a box set of the Smallville TV series.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed at summary judgment and obtained a seven-figure judgment for a major retailer in the face of a challenge to its Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated summary judgment for a plaintiff in a breach of fiduciary duty case concerning the rights to one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest private collections of Ansel Adams photographs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn an idea-theft case regarding the television show The Talk, obtained a complete dismissal on an anti-SLAPP motion for the television studio, producers, and creators of the show.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a permanent injunction for a handbag manufacturer in a multimillion-dollar trade dress dispute with a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon an anti-SLAPP motion on behalf of a client in a $15-million lawsuit alleging claims of extortion and obtained a dismissal of a related action after succeeding on demurrer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment for a defendant in Air2Water v. AquaSciences Inc., a case alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and other business torts against a company that has developed a cutting-edge technology to generate potable water out of the ambient humidity in the air.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a pro bono representation for acclaimed artist Gretchen Ryan, recovered more than $300,000 of artwork that was misappropriated by a rogue gallery that had previously represented Ms. Ryan as her art merchant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a pro bono representation regarding financial elder abuse, worked with Bet Tzedek Legal Services to successfully obtain the return of client\u0026rsquo;s real property and money that had been stolen by a caregiver. For his work on the matter, Michael received the California State Bar\u0026rsquo;s Wiley W. Manuel Award for pro bono legal services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, obtained a reversal of a decision voiding all cash advance agreements between class members in the NFL\u0026rsquo;s concussion suit and litigation funding companies. In re Nat\u0026rsquo;l Football League Players\u0026rsquo; Concussion Injury Litig., 923 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFiled amicus curiae briefs in the United States Supreme Court in the matters:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Case No. 19-7;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRaymond J. Lucia Companies v. SEC, Case No. 17-130;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFacebook, Inc. v. Duguid, Case No. 19-511; and\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBarr v. America Association of Political Consultants, Inc., Case No. 19-631.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on an appeal in a class action brought by landlords alleging short term vacation rentals violated local rent control ordinances and California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Law, Bus. \u0026amp; Prof. Code \u0026sect; 17200. See Alexis v. Airbnb, Inc., 2019 WL 4183934 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented the Santa Monica Rent Control Board against due process and takings challenges to Santa Monica\u0026rsquo;s rent-control law before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a group of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers in filing an amicus curiae brief regarding the enforceability of certain clauses in commercial real estate leases in the California Court of Appeal case Grand Prospect Partners v. Ross Dress for Less.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFiled amicus curiae briefs on behalf of a hedge fund in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals cases, Raymond J. Lucia Companies v. SEC and PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1180,"guid":"1180.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Roth","nick_name":"Michael","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Wallace Tashima, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"2003 - 2004"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"2002 - 2003"}],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2162,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2001-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"2021 Leaders of Influence - Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys ","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyer","detail":"2014-2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-roth-56777a12/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Roth is an accomplished civil litigator whose practice focuses on complex business and entertainment litigation, and cases brought under California\u0026rsquo;s consumer protection laws. He also leads scores of consumer class action matters across California in state and federal courts, and has been hailed as a \"17200 guru\" by clients.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Michael is often called on to represent clients through the appellate process and has obtained successful results on numerous appeals before the federal circuit courts and the California Court of Appeal.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore attending law school, Mr. Roth worked for several years in the music industry as the Director of Alternative Music at an internationally known record label before starting his own independent record company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarketing Mayhem: Recent Supreme Court Decisions \u0026amp; Litigation Trends, August 2020 Marketplace Risk, Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrent State of the Law in Litigation Finance, 2d Annual LF Dealmakers Forum 2019, Panelist\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersonal Jurisdiction Issues After\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBristol-Myers Squibb\u003c/em\u003e, 2018 Bridgeport Class Action Litigation Conference, Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eToo Good to Be True: Sellers Beware of Section 17200\u003c/em\u003e, CLE Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Defense Strikes Back: Litigating Under the anti-SLAPP Statute\u003c/em\u003e, CLE Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJourney to the Center of the Administrative State (or There and Back Again)\u003c/em\u003e, CLE Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConflict? What Conflict?\u003c/em\u003e, CLE Presenter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaissez-Fair Videoconferencing: Remote Witness Testimony and Adversarial Truth\u003c/em\u003e, 48 UCLA Law Review 185 (2000)\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003ePrevailed in an SEC administrative proceeding against a hedge fund alleging that the fund misled investors about its legal finance investments. For his work on the matter, Mr. Roth earned a spot as one of Law360\u0026rsquo;s legal lions for the week of October 18, 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a judgment in the Southern District of New York declaring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its enabling statute unconstitutional in their entirety.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCompelled arbitration in class action brought against cannabis company alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCompelled arbitration in false advertising class action brought against a ride-sharing company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in a nationwide, multimillion-dollar false advertising case brought against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading clothing retailers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a motion to deny class certification in an action against Best Buy, brought by a plaintiff who claimed he did not receive an extra promotional DVD in a box set of the Smallville TV series.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed at summary judgment and obtained a seven-figure judgment for a major retailer in the face of a challenge to its Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated summary judgment for a plaintiff in a breach of fiduciary duty case concerning the rights to one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest private collections of Ansel Adams photographs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn an idea-theft case regarding the television show The Talk, obtained a complete dismissal on an anti-SLAPP motion for the television studio, producers, and creators of the show.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a permanent injunction for a handbag manufacturer in a multimillion-dollar trade dress dispute with a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon an anti-SLAPP motion on behalf of a client in a $15-million lawsuit alleging claims of extortion and obtained a dismissal of a related action after succeeding on demurrer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment for a defendant in Air2Water v. AquaSciences Inc., a case alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and other business torts against a company that has developed a cutting-edge technology to generate potable water out of the ambient humidity in the air.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a pro bono representation for acclaimed artist Gretchen Ryan, recovered more than $300,000 of artwork that was misappropriated by a rogue gallery that had previously represented Ms. Ryan as her art merchant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a pro bono representation regarding financial elder abuse, worked with Bet Tzedek Legal Services to successfully obtain the return of client\u0026rsquo;s real property and money that had been stolen by a caregiver. For his work on the matter, Michael received the California State Bar\u0026rsquo;s Wiley W. Manuel Award for pro bono legal services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, obtained a reversal of a decision voiding all cash advance agreements between class members in the NFL\u0026rsquo;s concussion suit and litigation funding companies. In re Nat\u0026rsquo;l Football League Players\u0026rsquo; Concussion Injury Litig., 923 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFiled amicus curiae briefs in the United States Supreme Court in the matters:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Case No. 19-7;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRaymond J. Lucia Companies v. SEC, Case No. 17-130;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFacebook, Inc. v. Duguid, Case No. 19-511; and\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBarr v. America Association of Political Consultants, Inc., Case No. 19-631.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on an appeal in a class action brought by landlords alleging short term vacation rentals violated local rent control ordinances and California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Law, Bus. \u0026amp; Prof. Code \u0026sect; 17200. See Alexis v. Airbnb, Inc., 2019 WL 4183934 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented the Santa Monica Rent Control Board against due process and takings challenges to Santa Monica\u0026rsquo;s rent-control law before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a group of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers in filing an amicus curiae brief regarding the enforceability of certain clauses in commercial real estate leases in the California Court of Appeal case Grand Prospect Partners v. Ross Dress for Less.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFiled amicus curiae briefs on behalf of a hedge fund in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals cases, Raymond J. Lucia Companies v. SEC and PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"2021 Leaders of Influence - Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys ","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyer","detail":"2014-2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8090}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-19T22:00:14.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-19T22:00:14.000Z","searchable_text":"Roth{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2021 Leaders of Influence - Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Southern California Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2014-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Prevailed in an SEC administrative proceeding against a hedge fund alleging that the fund misled investors about its legal finance investments. For his work on the matter, Mr. Roth earned a spot as one of Law360’s legal lions for the week of October 18, 2018.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a judgment in the Southern District of New York declaring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its enabling statute unconstitutional in their entirety.{{ FIELD }}Compelled arbitration in class action brought against cannabis company alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.{{ FIELD }}Compelled arbitration in false advertising class action brought against a ride-sharing company.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in a nationwide, multimillion-dollar false advertising case brought against one of the world’s leading clothing retailers.{{ FIELD }}Won a motion to deny class certification in an action against Best Buy, brought by a plaintiff who claimed he did not receive an extra promotional DVD in a box set of the Smallville TV series.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed at summary judgment and obtained a seven-figure judgment for a major retailer in the face of a challenge to its Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policy.{{ FIELD }}Defeated summary judgment for a plaintiff in a breach of fiduciary duty case concerning the rights to one of the world’s largest private collections of Ansel Adams photographs.{{ FIELD }}In an idea-theft case regarding the television show The Talk, obtained a complete dismissal on an anti-SLAPP motion for the television studio, producers, and creators of the show.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a permanent injunction for a handbag manufacturer in a multimillion-dollar trade dress dispute with a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Won an anti-SLAPP motion on behalf of a client in a $15-million lawsuit alleging claims of extortion and obtained a dismissal of a related action after succeeding on demurrer.{{ FIELD }}Obtained summary judgment for a defendant in Air2Water v. AquaSciences Inc., a case alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and other business torts against a company that has developed a cutting-edge technology to generate potable water out of the ambient humidity in the air.{{ FIELD }}In a pro bono representation for acclaimed artist Gretchen Ryan, recovered more than $300,000 of artwork that was misappropriated by a rogue gallery that had previously represented Ms. Ryan as her art merchant.{{ FIELD }}In a pro bono representation regarding financial elder abuse, worked with Bet Tzedek Legal Services to successfully obtain the return of client’s real property and money that had been stolen by a caregiver. For his work on the matter, Michael received the California State Bar’s Wiley W. Manuel Award for pro bono legal services.{{ FIELD }}In the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, obtained a reversal of a decision voiding all cash advance agreements between class members in the NFL’s concussion suit and litigation funding companies. In re Nat’l Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litig., 923 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}Filed amicus curiae briefs in the United States Supreme Court in the matters:{{ FIELD }}Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Case No. 19-7;{{ FIELD }}Raymond J. Lucia Companies v. SEC, Case No. 17-130;{{ FIELD }}Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, Case No. 19-511; and{{ FIELD }}Barr v. America Association of Political Consultants, Inc., Case No. 19-631.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed on an appeal in a class action brought by landlords alleging short term vacation rentals violated local rent control ordinances and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Bus. \u0026amp; Prof. Code § 17200. See Alexis v. Airbnb, Inc., 2019 WL 4183934 (2019).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented the Santa Monica Rent Control Board against due process and takings challenges to Santa Monica’s rent-control law before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeal.{{ FIELD }}Represented a group of the world’s largest retailers in filing an amicus curiae brief regarding the enforceability of certain clauses in commercial real estate leases in the California Court of Appeal case Grand Prospect Partners v. Ross Dress for Less.{{ FIELD }}Filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of a hedge fund in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals cases, Raymond J. Lucia Companies v. SEC and PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.{{ FIELD }}Michael Roth is an accomplished civil litigator whose practice focuses on complex business and entertainment litigation, and cases brought under California’s consumer protection laws. He also leads scores of consumer class action matters across California in state and federal courts, and has been hailed as a \"17200 guru\" by clients.  In addition, Michael is often called on to represent clients through the appellate process and has obtained successful results on numerous appeals before the federal circuit courts and the California Court of Appeal.\nBefore attending law school, Mr. Roth worked for several years in the music industry as the Director of Alternative Music at an internationally known record label before starting his own independent record company.\nSpeaking Engagements\nMarketing Mayhem: Recent Supreme Court Decisions \u0026amp; Litigation Trends, August 2020 Marketplace Risk, Presenter\nCurrent State of the Law in Litigation Finance, 2d Annual LF Dealmakers Forum 2019, Panelist\nPersonal Jurisdiction Issues After Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2018 Bridgeport Class Action Litigation Conference, Presenter\nToo Good to Be True: Sellers Beware of Section 17200, CLE Presenter\nThe Defense Strikes Back: Litigating Under the anti-SLAPP Statute, CLE Presenter\nJourney to the Center of the Administrative State (or There and Back Again), CLE Presenter\nConflict? What Conflict?, CLE Presenter\nAuthor, Laissez-Fair Videoconferencing: Remote Witness Testimony and Adversarial Truth, 48 UCLA Law Review 185 (2000) Partner 2021 Leaders of Influence - Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys  Los Angeles Business Journal Southern California Super Lawyer 2014-2020 Tufts University  University of California-Los Angeles UCLA School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California American Bar Association Los Angeles County Bar Association Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Wallace Tashima, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judicial Clerk, Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Prevailed in an SEC administrative proceeding against a hedge fund alleging that the fund misled investors about its legal finance investments. For his work on the matter, Mr. Roth earned a spot as one of Law360’s legal lions for the week of October 18, 2018. Obtained a judgment in the Southern District of New York declaring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its enabling statute unconstitutional in their entirety. Compelled arbitration in class action brought against cannabis company alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Compelled arbitration in false advertising class action brought against a ride-sharing company. Defeated class certification in a nationwide, multimillion-dollar false advertising case brought against one of the world’s leading clothing retailers. Won a motion to deny class certification in an action against Best Buy, brought by a plaintiff who claimed he did not receive an extra promotional DVD in a box set of the Smallville TV series. Prevailed at summary judgment and obtained a seven-figure judgment for a major retailer in the face of a challenge to its Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policy. Defeated summary judgment for a plaintiff in a breach of fiduciary duty case concerning the rights to one of the world’s largest private collections of Ansel Adams photographs. In an idea-theft case regarding the television show The Talk, obtained a complete dismissal on an anti-SLAPP motion for the television studio, producers, and creators of the show. Obtained a permanent injunction for a handbag manufacturer in a multimillion-dollar trade dress dispute with a competitor. Won an anti-SLAPP motion on behalf of a client in a $15-million lawsuit alleging claims of extortion and obtained a dismissal of a related action after succeeding on demurrer. Obtained summary judgment for a defendant in Air2Water v. AquaSciences Inc., a case alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and other business torts against a company that has developed a cutting-edge technology to generate potable water out of the ambient humidity in the air. In a pro bono representation for acclaimed artist Gretchen Ryan, recovered more than $300,000 of artwork that was misappropriated by a rogue gallery that had previously represented Ms. Ryan as her art merchant. In a pro bono representation regarding financial elder abuse, worked with Bet Tzedek Legal Services to successfully obtain the return of client’s real property and money that had been stolen by a caregiver. For his work on the matter, Michael received the California State Bar’s Wiley W. Manuel Award for pro bono legal services. In the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, obtained a reversal of a decision voiding all cash advance agreements between class members in the NFL’s concussion suit and litigation funding companies. In re Nat’l Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litig., 923 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 2019). Filed amicus curiae briefs in the United States Supreme Court in the matters: Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Case No. 19-7; Raymond J. Lucia Companies v. SEC, Case No. 17-130; Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, Case No. 19-511; and Barr v. America Association of Political Consultants, Inc., Case No. 19-631. Prevailed on an appeal in a class action brought by landlords alleging short term vacation rentals violated local rent control ordinances and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Bus. \u0026amp; Prof. Code § 17200. See Alexis v. Airbnb, Inc., 2019 WL 4183934 (2019). Successfully represented the Santa Monica Rent Control Board against due process and takings challenges to Santa Monica’s rent-control law before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeal. Represented a group of the world’s largest retailers in filing an amicus curiae brief regarding the enforceability of certain clauses in commercial real estate leases in the California Court of Appeal case Grand Prospect Partners v. Ross Dress for Less. Filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of a hedge fund in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals cases, Raymond J. Lucia Companies v. SEC and PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.","searchable_name":"Michael D. Roth","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446780,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7351,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael (Mike) is one of the country\u0026rsquo;s top patent litigators with a high-level background in technology and is located in the firm\u0026rsquo;s San Francisco office.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has led teams for approximately 200 patent matters including in district courts, the PTAB, the Federal Circuit and the ITC. Mike is a first-call resource for many technology companies for their most significant and complex patent and related matters. Mike routinely counsels clients in the semiconductor, memory, telecom, medical device, networking, and virtualization spaces and has a strong focus on standards-based issues, crafting jury-friendly themes and litigating in Texas and Delaware courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to becoming a lawyer, Mike obtained nearly ten years of experience in industry, at Motorola focusing on trouble-shooting issues with high-tech instrumentation such as plasma etchers (as a semiconductor process technician) and in oil, gas and environmental labs focusing on mass spectroscopy and related instrumentation (as an analytical research chemist).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has guided clients through all stages of the litigation and PTAB post-grant processes, from pre-suit investigations to jury trials and ITC hearings, and through appeals of each up to the Federal Circuit. Mike has achieved great success for his clients across the country at trial and developing cases for trial, including obtaining key deposition admissions, arguing key motions winning claim construction (Markman) positions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has been featured in the Am Law \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; column multiple times, including for achieving a jury trial win in a heated competitor case and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, treble damages and injunction post-trial. Mike has also achieved significant pre-trial victories for his defense clients including full exclusion of the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; damages expert reports in separate litigations and a reduction of an adverse jury award to only $1.. Mike has argued in front of district courts and the PTAB multiple times and defended those wins on appeal at the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mike focused on patent litigation at other nationally ranked firms throughout the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has four sons who are the joy of his life. Mike also has a passion for pro bono work. Mike volunteers at the Marin County Law Library to assist pro bono clients and recently won $165,000+ in attorneys fees after securing a full win for one of his pro bono clients.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-rueckheim","email":"mrueckheim@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea leading semiconductor memory company\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple patent matters based in Texas Courts, the PTAB and Federal Circuit with technologies targeted at memory module architectures.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003emultiple firewall and cybersecurity companies\u003c/strong\u003e in patent matters pending in Texas and Delaware Courts, including the first multi-district litigation for Eastern District of Texas Judge Gilstrap.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea technology client \u003c/strong\u003ein multiple patent matters based in an Illinois Court, the PTAB, the Federal Circuit, the Eastern District of Texas and the ITC. Illinois jury trial was a competitor case involving two patents relating to wireless and battery technology. Obtained complete jury trial verdict/win on all issues, including an award of treble damages, attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees costs and permanent injunction. Court (in a post-trial opinion) stated: \u0026ldquo;This case was not close. [Defendant] lost on every issue at trial after less than two hours of jury deliberation.\u0026rdquo; Also obtained related wins from IPR stage and from ITC hearings (on different patents).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003ea large multinational information technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in a multi-patent litigation pending in the Northern District of Texas, with accusations relating to high-speed technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003ea large multinational information technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in an Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to manufacturing software techniques.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003efour major multinational technology defendants \u003c/strong\u003ejointly in IPR and appeal; defended one client in an underlying Delaware patent litigation. Case involved accusations relating to memory techniques, reducing probe traffic and cache coherency concepts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003ea major multinational technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in an Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to translating virtual addresses in a system having multiple instruction pipelines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea global leader in cloud and digital technology\u003c/strong\u003e in an IPR and appeal, as well as Delaware patent litigation. Case involved accusations relating to networking techniques for RAID memory systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003ea leading electronics, appliances and mobile devices company\u003c/strong\u003e in a Western District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to standard essential patent issues and Bluetooth frequency hopping selection of communications channels.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u003cstrong\u003e a major multinational technology company \u003c/strong\u003ein a multi-patent litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas, with accusations relating to processor architecture concepts, including SIMD floating point coprocessor techniques and memory applications.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Rueckheim","nick_name":"Mike","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri","years_held":"2008 - 2008"}],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":2489,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized within the top 100 attorneys in PTAB Litigation","detail":"Patexia, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Litigation - Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized for Patent Litigation: Full Coverage","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018, 2021"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer”","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2021"},{"title":"Recognized within the top 100 in the Patent Litigation Report","detail":"Patexia, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2020-2025"},{"title":"“Highly knowledgeable and experienced in all facets of patents and patent litigation, which he uses to achieve great results.”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"“Fantastic strategist who is extremely knowledgeable about the federal courts, especially in Texas.”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"“He has a keen technical ability along with practical judgment and a great ability to manage and run large teams – a combination of talents that is hard to find.”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"“Difference maker in Silicon Valley, impressing with his technical dexterity and trial proficiency.”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael (Mike) is one of the country\u0026rsquo;s top patent litigators with a high-level background in technology and is located in the firm\u0026rsquo;s San Francisco office.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has led teams for approximately 200 patent matters including in district courts, the PTAB, the Federal Circuit and the ITC. Mike is a first-call resource for many technology companies for their most significant and complex patent and related matters. Mike routinely counsels clients in the semiconductor, memory, telecom, medical device, networking, and virtualization spaces and has a strong focus on standards-based issues, crafting jury-friendly themes and litigating in Texas and Delaware courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to becoming a lawyer, Mike obtained nearly ten years of experience in industry, at Motorola focusing on trouble-shooting issues with high-tech instrumentation such as plasma etchers (as a semiconductor process technician) and in oil, gas and environmental labs focusing on mass spectroscopy and related instrumentation (as an analytical research chemist).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has guided clients through all stages of the litigation and PTAB post-grant processes, from pre-suit investigations to jury trials and ITC hearings, and through appeals of each up to the Federal Circuit. Mike has achieved great success for his clients across the country at trial and developing cases for trial, including obtaining key deposition admissions, arguing key motions winning claim construction (Markman) positions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has been featured in the Am Law \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; column multiple times, including for achieving a jury trial win in a heated competitor case and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, treble damages and injunction post-trial. Mike has also achieved significant pre-trial victories for his defense clients including full exclusion of the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; damages expert reports in separate litigations and a reduction of an adverse jury award to only $1.. Mike has argued in front of district courts and the PTAB multiple times and defended those wins on appeal at the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mike focused on patent litigation at other nationally ranked firms throughout the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike has four sons who are the joy of his life. Mike also has a passion for pro bono work. Mike volunteers at the Marin County Law Library to assist pro bono clients and recently won $165,000+ in attorneys fees after securing a full win for one of his pro bono clients.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea leading semiconductor memory company\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple patent matters based in Texas Courts, the PTAB and Federal Circuit with technologies targeted at memory module architectures.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003emultiple firewall and cybersecurity companies\u003c/strong\u003e in patent matters pending in Texas and Delaware Courts, including the first multi-district litigation for Eastern District of Texas Judge Gilstrap.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea technology client \u003c/strong\u003ein multiple patent matters based in an Illinois Court, the PTAB, the Federal Circuit, the Eastern District of Texas and the ITC. Illinois jury trial was a competitor case involving two patents relating to wireless and battery technology. Obtained complete jury trial verdict/win on all issues, including an award of treble damages, attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees costs and permanent injunction. Court (in a post-trial opinion) stated: \u0026ldquo;This case was not close. [Defendant] lost on every issue at trial after less than two hours of jury deliberation.\u0026rdquo; Also obtained related wins from IPR stage and from ITC hearings (on different patents).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003ea large multinational information technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in a multi-patent litigation pending in the Northern District of Texas, with accusations relating to high-speed technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003ea large multinational information technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in an Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to manufacturing software techniques.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003efour major multinational technology defendants \u003c/strong\u003ejointly in IPR and appeal; defended one client in an underlying Delaware patent litigation. Case involved accusations relating to memory techniques, reducing probe traffic and cache coherency concepts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003ea major multinational technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in an Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to translating virtual addresses in a system having multiple instruction pipelines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea global leader in cloud and digital technology\u003c/strong\u003e in an IPR and appeal, as well as Delaware patent litigation. Case involved accusations relating to networking techniques for RAID memory systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003ea leading electronics, appliances and mobile devices company\u003c/strong\u003e in a Western District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to standard essential patent issues and Bluetooth frequency hopping selection of communications channels.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u003cstrong\u003e a major multinational technology company \u003c/strong\u003ein a multi-patent litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas, with accusations relating to processor architecture concepts, including SIMD floating point coprocessor techniques and memory applications.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized within the top 100 attorneys in PTAB Litigation","detail":"Patexia, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Litigation - Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized for Patent Litigation: Full Coverage","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018, 2021"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer”","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2021"},{"title":"Recognized within the top 100 in the Patent Litigation Report","detail":"Patexia, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2020-2025"},{"title":"“Highly knowledgeable and experienced in all facets of patents and patent litigation, which he uses to achieve great results.”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"“Fantastic strategist who is extremely knowledgeable about the federal courts, especially in Texas.”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"“He has a keen technical ability along with practical judgment and a great ability to manage and run large teams – a combination of talents that is hard to find.”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"“Difference maker in Silicon Valley, impressing with his technical dexterity and trial proficiency.”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13405}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-17T12:54:18.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-17T12:54:18.000Z","searchable_text":"Rueckheim{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized within the top 100 attorneys in PTAB Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Patexia, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Litigation - Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Patent Litigation: Full Coverage\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2018, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized within the top 100 in the Patent Litigation Report\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Patexia, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2020-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Highly knowledgeable and experienced in all facets of patents and patent litigation, which he uses to achieve great results.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Fantastic strategist who is extremely knowledgeable about the federal courts, especially in Texas.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He has a keen technical ability along with practical judgment and a great ability to manage and run large teams – a combination of talents that is hard to find.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Difference maker in Silicon Valley, impressing with his technical dexterity and trial proficiency.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading semiconductor memory company in multiple patent matters based in Texas Courts, the PTAB and Federal Circuit with technologies targeted at memory module architectures.{{ FIELD }}Represents multiple firewall and cybersecurity companies in patent matters pending in Texas and Delaware Courts, including the first multi-district litigation for Eastern District of Texas Judge Gilstrap.{{ FIELD }}Represented a technology client in multiple patent matters based in an Illinois Court, the PTAB, the Federal Circuit, the Eastern District of Texas and the ITC. Illinois jury trial was a competitor case involving two patents relating to wireless and battery technology. Obtained complete jury trial verdict/win on all issues, including an award of treble damages, attorneys’ fees costs and permanent injunction. Court (in a post-trial opinion) stated: “This case was not close. [Defendant] lost on every issue at trial after less than two hours of jury deliberation.” Also obtained related wins from IPR stage and from ITC hearings (on different patents).{{ FIELD }}Defended a large multinational information technology company in a multi-patent litigation pending in the Northern District of Texas, with accusations relating to high-speed technologies.{{ FIELD }}Defended a large multinational information technology company in an Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to manufacturing software techniques.{{ FIELD }}Represented four major multinational technology defendants jointly in IPR and appeal; defended one client in an underlying Delaware patent litigation. Case involved accusations relating to memory techniques, reducing probe traffic and cache coherency concepts.{{ FIELD }}Defended a major multinational technology company in an Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to translating virtual addresses in a system having multiple instruction pipelines.{{ FIELD }}Represented a global leader in cloud and digital technology in an IPR and appeal, as well as Delaware patent litigation. Case involved accusations relating to networking techniques for RAID memory systems.{{ FIELD }}Defended a leading electronics, appliances and mobile devices company in a Western District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to standard essential patent issues and Bluetooth frequency hopping selection of communications channels.{{ FIELD }}Defended a major multinational technology company in a multi-patent litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas, with accusations relating to processor architecture concepts, including SIMD floating point coprocessor techniques and memory applications.{{ FIELD }}Michael (Mike) is one of the country’s top patent litigators with a high-level background in technology and is located in the firm’s San Francisco office.\nMike has led teams for approximately 200 patent matters including in district courts, the PTAB, the Federal Circuit and the ITC. Mike is a first-call resource for many technology companies for their most significant and complex patent and related matters. Mike routinely counsels clients in the semiconductor, memory, telecom, medical device, networking, and virtualization spaces and has a strong focus on standards-based issues, crafting jury-friendly themes and litigating in Texas and Delaware courts.\nPrior to becoming a lawyer, Mike obtained nearly ten years of experience in industry, at Motorola focusing on trouble-shooting issues with high-tech instrumentation such as plasma etchers (as a semiconductor process technician) and in oil, gas and environmental labs focusing on mass spectroscopy and related instrumentation (as an analytical research chemist).\nMike has guided clients through all stages of the litigation and PTAB post-grant processes, from pre-suit investigations to jury trials and ITC hearings, and through appeals of each up to the Federal Circuit. Mike has achieved great success for his clients across the country at trial and developing cases for trial, including obtaining key deposition admissions, arguing key motions winning claim construction (Markman) positions.\nMike has been featured in the Am Law “Litigator of the Week” column multiple times, including for achieving a jury trial win in a heated competitor case and an award of attorneys’ fees, treble damages and injunction post-trial. Mike has also achieved significant pre-trial victories for his defense clients including full exclusion of the plaintiffs’ damages expert reports in separate litigations and a reduction of an adverse jury award to only $1.. Mike has argued in front of district courts and the PTAB multiple times and defended those wins on appeal at the Federal Circuit.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mike focused on patent litigation at other nationally ranked firms throughout the country.\nMike has four sons who are the joy of his life. Mike also has a passion for pro bono work. Mike volunteers at the Marin County Law Library to assist pro bono clients and recently won $165,000+ in attorneys fees after securing a full win for one of his pro bono clients.  Partner Recognized within the top 100 attorneys in PTAB Litigation Patexia, 2025 Recognized for Litigation - Intellectual Property The Best Lawyers in America, 2024 Recognized for Patent Litigation: Full Coverage The Legal 500 US, 2018, 2021 Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” The Legal 500 US, 2021 Recognized within the top 100 in the Patent Litigation Report Patexia, 2025 Recognized IAM Patent 1000, 2020-2025 “Highly knowledgeable and experienced in all facets of patents and patent litigation, which he uses to achieve great results.” IAM Patent 1000 “Fantastic strategist who is extremely knowledgeable about the federal courts, especially in Texas.” IAM Patent 1000 “He has a keen technical ability along with practical judgment and a great ability to manage and run large teams – a combination of talents that is hard to find.” IAM Patent 1000 “Difference maker in Silicon Valley, impressing with his technical dexterity and trial proficiency.” IAM Patent 1000 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Washington University in St. Louis Washington University in St. Louis School of Law California New York Texas Member, American Bar Association Member, California Lawyers Association’s Intellectual Property Law Executive Committee Member, Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association Member, Houston Intellectual Property Association Law Clerk, Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Represented a leading semiconductor memory company in multiple patent matters based in Texas Courts, the PTAB and Federal Circuit with technologies targeted at memory module architectures. Represents multiple firewall and cybersecurity companies in patent matters pending in Texas and Delaware Courts, including the first multi-district litigation for Eastern District of Texas Judge Gilstrap. Represented a technology client in multiple patent matters based in an Illinois Court, the PTAB, the Federal Circuit, the Eastern District of Texas and the ITC. Illinois jury trial was a competitor case involving two patents relating to wireless and battery technology. Obtained complete jury trial verdict/win on all issues, including an award of treble damages, attorneys’ fees costs and permanent injunction. Court (in a post-trial opinion) stated: “This case was not close. [Defendant] lost on every issue at trial after less than two hours of jury deliberation.” Also obtained related wins from IPR stage and from ITC hearings (on different patents). Defended a large multinational information technology company in a multi-patent litigation pending in the Northern District of Texas, with accusations relating to high-speed technologies. Defended a large multinational information technology company in an Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to manufacturing software techniques. Represented four major multinational technology defendants jointly in IPR and appeal; defended one client in an underlying Delaware patent litigation. Case involved accusations relating to memory techniques, reducing probe traffic and cache coherency concepts. Defended a major multinational technology company in an Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to translating virtual addresses in a system having multiple instruction pipelines. Represented a global leader in cloud and digital technology in an IPR and appeal, as well as Delaware patent litigation. Case involved accusations relating to networking techniques for RAID memory systems. Defended a leading electronics, appliances and mobile devices company in a Western District of Texas patent litigation, with accusations relating to standard essential patent issues and Bluetooth frequency hopping selection of communications channels. Defended a major multinational technology company in a multi-patent litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas, with accusations relating to processor architecture concepts, including SIMD floating point coprocessor techniques and memory applications.","searchable_name":"Michael Rueckheim (Mike)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447586,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7331,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTracea represents clients in high-stakes commercial disputes, including patent infringement and trade secret litigation, in federal courts and the ITC. With an electrical and computer engineering background and experience as a federal judicial clerk, she is particularly effective in matters involving complex technical issues and requiring a trial-ready approach. Appreciating that complex litigation is often won through both oral and written advocacy, Tracea excels in shaping the written record through depositions, critical briefing, and dispositive motions practice.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTracea is a litigation attorney who represents clients in complex business disputes, including high-stakes patent infringement, trade secret, and commercial litigation matters before federal district courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and the International Trade Commission. She also has experience representing clients in a variety of pro bono matters, including employment litigation disputes. Tracea leverages her experience as a former federal judicial law clerk and her love for trial advocacy to passionately represent her clients from pre-litigation through case disposition. She is experienced in drafting substantive briefs, taking and defending witnesses at depositions, arguing in federal court in relation to Markman proceedings and other motion practices, preparing witnesses to give trial testimony, and examining witnesses at trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Tracea practiced at an international law firm and was a judicial clerk for the Honorable Robert W. Schroeder III in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Before law school, she worked as a patent agent, drafting and prosecuting patent applications related to a wide range of technologies, primarily in the electrical, computer, and mechanical technology fields\u0026mdash;including software, e-commerce, aerospace, medical devices, appliance and tooling technologies, and business method patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTracea received her B.S. in computer and electrical engineering from North Carolina State University. She received her J.D. from Wake Forest University School of Law, where she was a member of the Order of Barristers National Honor Society and the Moot Court Board. During law school, Tracea received the Outstanding Student Award from the National Association of Women Lawyers\u0026mdash;an award presented to a law student who contributed to the advancement of women in society and promoted issues and concerns of women in the legal profession. Tracea also won multiple trial advocacy competitions at the national level and received the Robert Goldberg Award in Trial Advocacy\u0026mdash;an award given to the student who showcased the highest aptitude and ethics in trial advocacy at Wake Forest Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"tracea-rice","email":"trice@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Rice","nick_name":"Tracea","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Robert W. Schroeder III, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2022 - 2023"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Jimmie V. Reyna, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","years_held":"2024 - 2025"}],"first_name":"Tracea","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2471,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":null},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, Intellectual Property","detail":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, 2025"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":75,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTracea represents clients in high-stakes commercial disputes, including patent infringement and trade secret litigation, in federal courts and the ITC. With an electrical and computer engineering background and experience as a federal judicial clerk, she is particularly effective in matters involving complex technical issues and requiring a trial-ready approach. Appreciating that complex litigation is often won through both oral and written advocacy, Tracea excels in shaping the written record through depositions, critical briefing, and dispositive motions practice.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTracea is a litigation attorney who represents clients in complex business disputes, including high-stakes patent infringement, trade secret, and commercial litigation matters before federal district courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and the International Trade Commission. She also has experience representing clients in a variety of pro bono matters, including employment litigation disputes. Tracea leverages her experience as a former federal judicial law clerk and her love for trial advocacy to passionately represent her clients from pre-litigation through case disposition. She is experienced in drafting substantive briefs, taking and defending witnesses at depositions, arguing in federal court in relation to Markman proceedings and other motion practices, preparing witnesses to give trial testimony, and examining witnesses at trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Tracea practiced at an international law firm and was a judicial clerk for the Honorable Robert W. Schroeder III in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Before law school, she worked as a patent agent, drafting and prosecuting patent applications related to a wide range of technologies, primarily in the electrical, computer, and mechanical technology fields\u0026mdash;including software, e-commerce, aerospace, medical devices, appliance and tooling technologies, and business method patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTracea received her B.S. in computer and electrical engineering from North Carolina State University. She received her J.D. from Wake Forest University School of Law, where she was a member of the Order of Barristers National Honor Society and the Moot Court Board. During law school, Tracea received the Outstanding Student Award from the National Association of Women Lawyers\u0026mdash;an award presented to a law student who contributed to the advancement of women in society and promoted issues and concerns of women in the legal profession. Tracea also won multiple trial advocacy competitions at the national level and received the Robert Goldberg Award in Trial Advocacy\u0026mdash;an award given to the student who showcased the highest aptitude and ethics in trial advocacy at Wake Forest Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, Intellectual Property","detail":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, 2025"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13468}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-16T15:14:01.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-16T15:14:01.000Z","searchable_text":"Rice{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}Tracea represents clients in high-stakes commercial disputes, including patent infringement and trade secret litigation, in federal courts and the ITC. With an electrical and computer engineering background and experience as a federal judicial clerk, she is particularly effective in matters involving complex technical issues and requiring a trial-ready approach. Appreciating that complex litigation is often won through both oral and written advocacy, Tracea excels in shaping the written record through depositions, critical briefing, and dispositive motions practice. \nTracea is a litigation attorney who represents clients in complex business disputes, including high-stakes patent infringement, trade secret, and commercial litigation matters before federal district courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and the International Trade Commission. She also has experience representing clients in a variety of pro bono matters, including employment litigation disputes. Tracea leverages her experience as a former federal judicial law clerk and her love for trial advocacy to passionately represent her clients from pre-litigation through case disposition. She is experienced in drafting substantive briefs, taking and defending witnesses at depositions, arguing in federal court in relation to Markman proceedings and other motion practices, preparing witnesses to give trial testimony, and examining witnesses at trial.\nPrior to joining the firm, Tracea practiced at an international law firm and was a judicial clerk for the Honorable Robert W. Schroeder III in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Before law school, she worked as a patent agent, drafting and prosecuting patent applications related to a wide range of technologies, primarily in the electrical, computer, and mechanical technology fields—including software, e-commerce, aerospace, medical devices, appliance and tooling technologies, and business method patents.\nTracea received her B.S. in computer and electrical engineering from North Carolina State University. She received her J.D. from Wake Forest University School of Law, where she was a member of the Order of Barristers National Honor Society and the Moot Court Board. During law school, Tracea received the Outstanding Student Award from the National Association of Women Lawyers—an award presented to a law student who contributed to the advancement of women in society and promoted issues and concerns of women in the legal profession. Tracea also won multiple trial advocacy competitions at the national level and received the Robert Goldberg Award in Trial Advocacy—an award given to the student who showcased the highest aptitude and ethics in trial advocacy at Wake Forest Law.\n  Senior Associate Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, Intellectual Property Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America, 2025 Wake Forest University Wake Forest University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Virginia Judicial Clerk, Hon. Robert W. Schroeder III, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Judicial Clerk, Hon. Jimmie V. Reyna, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","searchable_name":"Tracea Rice","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446985,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7324,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew Reilly is a litigation associate and Registered Patent Attorney\u0026nbsp;who brings nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience to his legal practice. Matthew defends clients in patent litigation across technology-intensive industries\u0026mdash;including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas\u0026mdash;leveraging real-world engineering insight to deliver technically informed counsel.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew Reilly is a litigation associate and a Registered Patent Attorney with nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience. Before attending law school, Matthew served in various engineering roles at multiple companies in the medical device industry, where he led cross-functional teams in developing complex products. His deep technical background\u0026mdash;including expertise in mechanical engineering design, product development, regulatory strategy, and cross-functional team leadership\u0026mdash;gives Matthew a unique ability to understand clients' products,\u0026nbsp;challenges, and legal landscape from the inside out.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew earned his Juris Doctor magna cum laude from Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law and served as an Associate Editor of the Pepperdine Law Review. He also holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering summa cum laude from Baylor University. Matthew is licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and is admitted to the Texas State Bar and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew has defended clients in patent litigation across a range of technology-intensive industries, including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas. Matthew's combination of legal credentials and real-world engineering experience positions him to provide clients with sophisticated, technically informed patent litigation counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"matthew-reilly","email":"mreilly@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":5185}]},"expertise":[{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1472,"guid":"1472.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Reilly","nick_name":"Matthew","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Matthew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1570,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude \u0026 Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2025-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew Reilly is a litigation associate and Registered Patent Attorney\u0026nbsp;who brings nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience to his legal practice. Matthew defends clients in patent litigation across technology-intensive industries\u0026mdash;including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas\u0026mdash;leveraging real-world engineering insight to deliver technically informed counsel.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew Reilly is a litigation associate and a Registered Patent Attorney with nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience. Before attending law school, Matthew served in various engineering roles at multiple companies in the medical device industry, where he led cross-functional teams in developing complex products. His deep technical background\u0026mdash;including expertise in mechanical engineering design, product development, regulatory strategy, and cross-functional team leadership\u0026mdash;gives Matthew a unique ability to understand clients' products,\u0026nbsp;challenges, and legal landscape from the inside out.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew earned his Juris Doctor magna cum laude from Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law and served as an Associate Editor of the Pepperdine Law Review. He also holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering summa cum laude from Baylor University. Matthew is licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and is admitted to the Texas State Bar and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew has defended clients in patent litigation across a range of technology-intensive industries, including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas. Matthew's combination of legal credentials and real-world engineering experience positions him to provide clients with sophisticated, technically informed patent litigation counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13426}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-24T14:01:02.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-24T14:01:02.000Z","searchable_text":"Reilly{{ FIELD }}Matthew Reilly is a litigation associate and Registered Patent Attorney who brings nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience to his legal practice. Matthew defends clients in patent litigation across technology-intensive industries—including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas—leveraging real-world engineering insight to deliver technically informed counsel. \nMatthew Reilly is a litigation associate and a Registered Patent Attorney with nearly seven years of hands-on engineering experience. Before attending law school, Matthew served in various engineering roles at multiple companies in the medical device industry, where he led cross-functional teams in developing complex products. His deep technical background—including expertise in mechanical engineering design, product development, regulatory strategy, and cross-functional team leadership—gives Matthew a unique ability to understand clients' products, challenges, and legal landscape from the inside out.\nMatthew earned his Juris Doctor magna cum laude from Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law and served as an Associate Editor of the Pepperdine Law Review. He also holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering summa cum laude from Baylor University. Matthew is licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and is admitted to the Texas State Bar and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas.\nMatthew has defended clients in patent litigation across a range of technology-intensive industries, including automotive, aviation, semiconductor, medical device, and oil and gas. Matthew's combination of legal credentials and real-world engineering experience positions him to provide clients with sophisticated, technically informed patent litigation counsel. Matthew Reilly lawyer Associate Baylor University Baylor University School of Law Pepperdine University Pepperdine University School of Law U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Texas","searchable_name":"Matthew Reilly","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447103,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7326,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSamuel is an intellectual property lawyer. He draws on his engineering industry experience to help clients navigate complex, high-stakes disputes involving advanced technologies. Samuel has experience at every stage of district court litigation, including claim construction, fact and expert discovery, summary judgment, and trial. He also has experience with pre-suit diligence and \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review proceedings.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the firm, Samuel served as a law clerk to the Honorable Roy S. Payne of the Eastern District of Texas. In that role, he was deeply involved in dozens of \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings and supported multiple trials, providing him with valuable insight into how courts evaluate complex patent disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier in his career, Samuel practiced at a boutique intellectual property firm where he prepared and prosecuted domestic and international patent applications spanning technologies such as oil and gas, semiconductors, biomedical devices, power generation and storage, electronics, and computer software.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"samuel-riebe","email":"sriebe@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented USWS in patent infringement case against Halliburton involving hydraulic fracturing technology. Case resolved on favorable terms to USWS.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Riebe","nick_name":"Samuel","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2022 - 2023"}],"first_name":"Samuel","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":345,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":null},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Wade","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSamuel is an intellectual property lawyer. He draws on his engineering industry experience to help clients navigate complex, high-stakes disputes involving advanced technologies. Samuel has experience at every stage of district court litigation, including claim construction, fact and expert discovery, summary judgment, and trial. He also has experience with pre-suit diligence and \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e review proceedings.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the firm, Samuel served as a law clerk to the Honorable Roy S. Payne of the Eastern District of Texas. In that role, he was deeply involved in dozens of \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings and supported multiple trials, providing him with valuable insight into how courts evaluate complex patent disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier in his career, Samuel practiced at a boutique intellectual property firm where he prepared and prosecuted domestic and international patent applications spanning technologies such as oil and gas, semiconductors, biomedical devices, power generation and storage, electronics, and computer software.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented USWS in patent infringement case against Halliburton involving hydraulic fracturing technology. Case resolved on favorable terms to USWS.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13416}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-27T19:02:11.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-27T19:02:11.000Z","searchable_text":"Riebe{{ FIELD }}Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) – represented USWS in patent infringement case against Halliburton involving hydraulic fracturing technology. Case resolved on favorable terms to USWS.{{ FIELD }}Samuel is an intellectual property lawyer. He draws on his engineering industry experience to help clients navigate complex, high-stakes disputes involving advanced technologies. Samuel has experience at every stage of district court litigation, including claim construction, fact and expert discovery, summary judgment, and trial. He also has experience with pre-suit diligence and inter partes review proceedings. \nBefore joining the firm, Samuel served as a law clerk to the Honorable Roy S. Payne of the Eastern District of Texas. In that role, he was deeply involved in dozens of Markman hearings and supported multiple trials, providing him with valuable insight into how courts evaluate complex patent disputes.\nEarlier in his career, Samuel practiced at a boutique intellectual property firm where he prepared and prosecuted domestic and international patent applications spanning technologies such as oil and gas, semiconductors, biomedical devices, power generation and storage, electronics, and computer software. Associate Colorado State University  Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Texas Utah Judicial Clerk, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) – represented USWS in patent infringement case against Halliburton involving hydraulic fracturing technology. Case resolved on favorable terms to USWS.","searchable_name":"Samuel Wade Riebe","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447509,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7340,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWith an engineering background and experience as a Registered Patent Attorney, Caitlin Rodgers helps clients navigate patent litigation across technology-driven industries\u0026mdash;including software, consumer electronics, manufacturing, telecommunications, and oil and gas. Caitlin also represents clients in federal and state courts on a variety of technology, business, and civil rights disputes, combining technical know-how with practical legal strategy to get results. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCaitlin is an associate in the business litigation practice group with a primary focus on intellectual property disputes. She has hands-on experience across the lifecycle of complex cases, such as managing discovery,\u0026nbsp;drafting\u0026nbsp;petitions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;review, preparing witnesses for and taking depositions, presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, drafting and arguing motions, and\u0026nbsp;developing overall case strategy.\u0026nbsp;Beyond patent litigation, Caitlin represents clients in federal and state courts on a broad range of business and civil rights matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCaitlin earned\u0026nbsp;her B.S.\u0026nbsp;and J.D.\u0026nbsp;from Texas A\u0026amp;M University, graduating\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ein both the Honors Engineering Program and law school curriculum.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"caitlin-rodgers","email":"crodgers@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":579,"guid":"579.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Rodgers","nick_name":"Caitlin","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Caitlin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWith an engineering background and experience as a Registered Patent Attorney, Caitlin Rodgers helps clients navigate patent litigation across technology-driven industries\u0026mdash;including software, consumer electronics, manufacturing, telecommunications, and oil and gas. Caitlin also represents clients in federal and state courts on a variety of technology, business, and civil rights disputes, combining technical know-how with practical legal strategy to get results. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCaitlin is an associate in the business litigation practice group with a primary focus on intellectual property disputes. She has hands-on experience across the lifecycle of complex cases, such as managing discovery,\u0026nbsp;drafting\u0026nbsp;petitions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;review, preparing witnesses for and taking depositions, presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, drafting and arguing motions, and\u0026nbsp;developing overall case strategy.\u0026nbsp;Beyond patent litigation, Caitlin represents clients in federal and state courts on a broad range of business and civil rights matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCaitlin earned\u0026nbsp;her B.S.\u0026nbsp;and J.D.\u0026nbsp;from Texas A\u0026amp;M University, graduating\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ein both the Honors Engineering Program and law school curriculum.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-13T22:07:17.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-13T22:07:17.000Z","searchable_text":"Rodgers{{ FIELD }}With an engineering background and experience as a Registered Patent Attorney, Caitlin Rodgers helps clients navigate patent litigation across technology-driven industries—including software, consumer electronics, manufacturing, telecommunications, and oil and gas. Caitlin also represents clients in federal and state courts on a variety of technology, business, and civil rights disputes, combining technical know-how with practical legal strategy to get results. \nCaitlin is an associate in the business litigation practice group with a primary focus on intellectual property disputes. She has hands-on experience across the lifecycle of complex cases, such as managing discovery, drafting petitions for inter partes review, preparing witnesses for and taking depositions, presenting at Markman hearings, drafting and arguing motions, and developing overall case strategy. Beyond patent litigation, Caitlin represents clients in federal and state courts on a broad range of business and civil rights matters.\nCaitlin earned her B.S. and J.D. from Texas A\u0026amp;M University, graduating magna cum laude in both the Honors Engineering Program and law school curriculum. Associate Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Texas","searchable_name":"Caitlin Rodgers","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}