{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"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 / 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 Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"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 Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"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":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"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":3060},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"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 Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"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":3052},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"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":"Immobilier","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":448260,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7351,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael (\u0026ldquo;Mike\u0026rdquo;) is among the nation\u0026rsquo;s leading patent litigators, recognized for his ability to master and clearly explain highly complex technologies to courts, juries, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Drawing on his many years of industry experience in semiconductors and analytical chemistry, he brings exceptional technical fluency to every engagement. Mike has led approximately 200 patent-related matters, with particular depth in patent-heavy dockets in Texas and Delaware, as well as \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e reviews, \u003cem\u003eex parte\u003c/em\u003e reexaminations, post-grant reviews, ITC investigations, and Federal Circuit appeals. His practice is regularly recognized, including by \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e (\u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo;), Patexia, \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike is a first-call resource for many companies for their most significant and complex patent and related matters. He regularly counsels clients across the semiconductor, memory, telecommunications, medical device, networking, and virtualization industries, with a particular strength in developing clear, jury-friendly trial themes. His practice is also distinguished by a deep command of standard-essential patent and FRAND/RAND litigation strategies, applied across a broad range of technologies.\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 litigation and Patent Office challenges.\u0026nbsp; For litigations: he routinely leads significant multi-patent cases for large technology and medical device clients from the pre-suit investigation stage through jury trials and ITC hearings.\u0026nbsp; For Patent Office challenges: he routinely assists his clients in researching the relevant technology and presenting successful arguments.\u0026nbsp; Mike has achieved great success for his clients across the country, including through developing key claim construction positions, obtaining compelling witness admissions, and presenting arguments and witnesses to court and juries.\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.\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\u0026rsquo; fees after securing a full win for one of his pro bono clients in a judicial foreclosure matter.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-rueckheim","email":"mrueckheim@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicron Technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnification Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicron\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as well as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHP Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dell Technologies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNetlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. \u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., and D. Del) \u0026ndash; representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicron\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of cases involving numerous patents with accusations related to memory technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDoorDash, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFall Line Patents, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDoorDash\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein patent case and related\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eex partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (EPR) challenge related to app feature accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrosoft Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation \u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicrosoft\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein two patent case related to edge computing accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation \u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicrosoft\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein eight patent case and related\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges related to networking accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation \u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicrosoft\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein two patent case and related\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges related to cache memory accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eApple, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eappeals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersonal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eApple\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;through a jury trial in a case where two patents were asserted against audio playback technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicroUnity Systems Engineering Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ev. Apple, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eApple\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a seventeen patent case that settled shortly before trial. Led strategy development applicable for Apple and large joint defense group of companies. Patent accusations related to Arm Neon Single Instruction, Multiple Data (SIMD) processor architecture and related features.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVantage Point Technology v.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eApple, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eApple\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in cases where three patents were asserted against processor instruction pipelining and cache memory related features. Led strategy development applicable for Apple and large joint defense group of companies. Cases settled shortly after successful transfer request moving the Apple cases to the Northern District of California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMemory Integrity LLC v. Apple, Inc. \u003c/em\u003e(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; represented Apple in patent case with accusations related to cache memory. Represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eApple\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmazon.com, HTC, and Samsung\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successfully challenging the asserted patent in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) and defending that success on appeal at the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eVMware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSafe Storage LLC v VMware, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eVMware\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a case involving RAID memory technology accusations. Case settled after Federal Circuit appeal of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures II LLC v. VMware, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eVMware\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two cases involving ten patents and accusations among virtual computing and networking features. Case settled after success in multiple\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDesktopSites, Inc. v.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVMware, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eVMware\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-patent case involving virtualization accusations. Successful in obtaining an early-case dismissal after exposing significant flaws in infringement accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHP Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnification Technologies LLC v. HP Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHP Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIndustrial Print Technologies LLC v. HP Inc\u003c/em\u003e. (N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHP Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case involving five asserted patents with accusations relating to document formatting and high-speed printing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbstrax, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein patent case involving accusations against HP\u0026rsquo;s manufacturing processes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSuper Interconnect Technologies LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHP\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in patent case involving accusations against CMOS drivers and on-chip termination.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eZenith Electronics LLC v. Sony Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Ill.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eZenith\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a two patent competitor case with accusations relating to error tracking and digital televisions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVigilos, LLC v. Intel Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIntel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in in patent case involving accusations against a healthcare management system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCatheter Flushing v Becton Dickinson and Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.UT) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBecton Dickinson\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in patent case with accusations against medical catheters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGraceway Pharmaceuticals, LLC v Perrigo Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.NJ) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGraceway\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein patent case with accusation against pharmaceutical creams.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoche Diagnostics v Nova Biomedical Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNova Biomedical\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in three patent case with accusations involving blood glucose measurement devices and tradesecrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Chamberlain Group LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ein multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOverhead Door Corporation v. The Chamberlain Group LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex. and E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChamberlain\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple competitor cases, including a case that went through a jury trial and appeals. Multiple patents asserted and accusations related to garage door opener, security and networking features.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Ill. And ITC) \u0026ndash; represented Chamberlain in competitor case involving patents and accusations related to garage door opener and networking features. Recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on June 1, 2018 after successfully obtaining an award of treble damages, attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, injunction and costs. The Court stated after the jury trial that \u0026ldquo;this case was not close,\u0026rdquo; and observed that the defendant \u0026ldquo;lost on every issue at trial after less than two hours of jury deliberation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOther representative matters include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRex Medical, L.P.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ev. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIntuitive Surgical\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein two patent case related to surgical stapler accusations. Defended Intuitive through a jury trial. Successful in striking damages expert testimony and defending success on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on September 29, 2023 after successfully convincing the judge to strike plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s damages theory to only $1 and observe that the record was \u0026ldquo;wholly lacking in evidence\u0026rdquo; to determine a reasonable royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTaasera Licensing v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex. And S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePalo Alto Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in nine patent case\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003erelated to\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003enetwork security feature accusations. Case consolidated as Judge Gilstrap\u0026rsquo;s first Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) matter. Case settled after successfully filing multiple\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eex parte\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereexamination (EPR) challenges, and arguing key issues with respect to claim construction and 35 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 101 patent ineligibility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSol IP, LLC v. Ericsson Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented Ericsson in 27 patent case related to 3G/4G telecom and WiFi accusations. Case settled after successfully filing multiple\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVista Peak Ventures, LLC v. Hisense International Co., Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e, (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHisense\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in series of cases involving twelve patents and accusations related to display and television features. Cases settled after successfully filing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eZapFraud, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eProofpoint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in cases involving three patents and firewall and network security accusations. Successful in demonstrating that the asserted patents are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 101.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpticurrent, LLC v On Semiconductor Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; represented On Semiconductor in one patent case relating to transistor accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnification Technologies LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. \u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDell\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolve BioSystems, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories \u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Ill.)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAbbott\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two patent case related to composition of infant formula. Final judgment entered after dispositive motion success.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnification Technologies LLC v. Silicon Motion Inc. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSilicon Motion\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein defending against four patents with accusations against memory technologies and a related\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArc Medical Design Ltd\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ev. Medivators Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eArc Medical\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOlympus Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two patent competitor case relating to medical device accusations. Case settled after successfully defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParadise IP LLC v. Box, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBox\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in six patent case related to document management accusations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRite-Hite Holding Corporation v Systems, LLC \u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Wis.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSystems\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in single patent case with accusations relating to vehicle restraints.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. (D.MD) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChargePoint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in four patent competitor case with accusations relating to electric vehicle charging stations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYeti Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRTIC Coolers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in design patent case.\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":202,"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 (\u0026ldquo;Mike\u0026rdquo;) is among the nation\u0026rsquo;s leading patent litigators, recognized for his ability to master and clearly explain highly complex technologies to courts, juries, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Drawing on his many years of industry experience in semiconductors and analytical chemistry, he brings exceptional technical fluency to every engagement. Mike has led approximately 200 patent-related matters, with particular depth in patent-heavy dockets in Texas and Delaware, as well as \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e reviews, \u003cem\u003eex parte\u003c/em\u003e reexaminations, post-grant reviews, ITC investigations, and Federal Circuit appeals. His practice is regularly recognized, including by \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e (\u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo;), Patexia, \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike is a first-call resource for many companies for their most significant and complex patent and related matters. He regularly counsels clients across the semiconductor, memory, telecommunications, medical device, networking, and virtualization industries, with a particular strength in developing clear, jury-friendly trial themes. His practice is also distinguished by a deep command of standard-essential patent and FRAND/RAND litigation strategies, applied across a broad range of technologies.\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 litigation and Patent Office challenges.\u0026nbsp; For litigations: he routinely leads significant multi-patent cases for large technology and medical device clients from the pre-suit investigation stage through jury trials and ITC hearings.\u0026nbsp; For Patent Office challenges: he routinely assists his clients in researching the relevant technology and presenting successful arguments.\u0026nbsp; Mike has achieved great success for his clients across the country, including through developing key claim construction positions, obtaining compelling witness admissions, and presenting arguments and witnesses to court and juries.\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.\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\u0026rsquo; fees after securing a full win for one of his pro bono clients in a judicial foreclosure matter.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicron Technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnification Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicron\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as well as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHP Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dell Technologies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNetlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. \u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., and D. Del) \u0026ndash; representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicron\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of cases involving numerous patents with accusations related to memory technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDoorDash, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFall Line Patents, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDoorDash\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein patent case and related\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eex partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (EPR) challenge related to app feature accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrosoft Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eExafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation \u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicrosoft\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein two patent case related to edge computing accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation \u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicrosoft\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein eight patent case and related\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges related to networking accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation \u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicrosoft\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein two patent case and related\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges related to cache memory accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eApple, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eappeals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersonal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eApple\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;through a jury trial in a case where two patents were asserted against audio playback technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicroUnity Systems Engineering Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ev. Apple, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eApple\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a seventeen patent case that settled shortly before trial. Led strategy development applicable for Apple and large joint defense group of companies. Patent accusations related to Arm Neon Single Instruction, Multiple Data (SIMD) processor architecture and related features.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVantage Point Technology v.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eApple, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eApple\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in cases where three patents were asserted against processor instruction pipelining and cache memory related features. Led strategy development applicable for Apple and large joint defense group of companies. Cases settled shortly after successful transfer request moving the Apple cases to the Northern District of California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMemory Integrity LLC v. Apple, Inc. \u003c/em\u003e(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; represented Apple in patent case with accusations related to cache memory. Represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eApple\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmazon.com, HTC, and Samsung\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successfully challenging the asserted patent in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) and defending that success on appeal at the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eVMware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSafe Storage LLC v VMware, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eVMware\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a case involving RAID memory technology accusations. Case settled after Federal Circuit appeal of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures II LLC v. VMware, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eVMware\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two cases involving ten patents and accusations among virtual computing and networking features. Case settled after success in multiple\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDesktopSites, Inc. v.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVMware, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eVMware\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-patent case involving virtualization accusations. Successful in obtaining an early-case dismissal after exposing significant flaws in infringement accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHP Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnification Technologies LLC v. HP Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHP Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIndustrial Print Technologies LLC v. HP Inc\u003c/em\u003e. (N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHP Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case involving five asserted patents with accusations relating to document formatting and high-speed printing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAbstrax, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein patent case involving accusations against HP\u0026rsquo;s manufacturing processes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSuper Interconnect Technologies LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHP\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in patent case involving accusations against CMOS drivers and on-chip termination.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eZenith Electronics LLC v. Sony Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Ill.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eZenith\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a two patent competitor case with accusations relating to error tracking and digital televisions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVigilos, LLC v. Intel Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIntel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in in patent case involving accusations against a healthcare management system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCatheter Flushing v Becton Dickinson and Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.UT) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBecton Dickinson\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in patent case with accusations against medical catheters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGraceway Pharmaceuticals, LLC v Perrigo Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.NJ) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGraceway\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein patent case with accusation against pharmaceutical creams.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoche Diagnostics v Nova Biomedical Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNova Biomedical\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in three patent case with accusations involving blood glucose measurement devices and tradesecrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Chamberlain Group LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ein multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOverhead Door Corporation v. The Chamberlain Group LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex. and E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChamberlain\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple competitor cases, including a case that went through a jury trial and appeals. Multiple patents asserted and accusations related to garage door opener, security and networking features.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Ill. And ITC) \u0026ndash; represented Chamberlain in competitor case involving patents and accusations related to garage door opener and networking features. Recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on June 1, 2018 after successfully obtaining an award of treble damages, attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, injunction and costs. The Court stated after the jury trial that \u0026ldquo;this case was not close,\u0026rdquo; and observed that the defendant \u0026ldquo;lost on every issue at trial after less than two hours of jury deliberation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOther representative matters include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRex Medical, L.P.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ev. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIntuitive Surgical\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein two patent case related to surgical stapler accusations. Defended Intuitive through a jury trial. Successful in striking damages expert testimony and defending success on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on September 29, 2023 after successfully convincing the judge to strike plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s damages theory to only $1 and observe that the record was \u0026ldquo;wholly lacking in evidence\u0026rdquo; to determine a reasonable royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTaasera Licensing v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex. And S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePalo Alto Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in nine patent case\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003erelated to\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003enetwork security feature accusations. Case consolidated as Judge Gilstrap\u0026rsquo;s first Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) matter. Case settled after successfully filing multiple\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eex parte\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereexamination (EPR) challenges, and arguing key issues with respect to claim construction and 35 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 101 patent ineligibility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSol IP, LLC v. Ericsson Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented Ericsson in 27 patent case related to 3G/4G telecom and WiFi accusations. Case settled after successfully filing multiple\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVista Peak Ventures, LLC v. Hisense International Co., Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e, (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHisense\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in series of cases involving twelve patents and accusations related to display and television features. Cases settled after successfully filing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eZapFraud, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eProofpoint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in cases involving three patents and firewall and network security accusations. Successful in demonstrating that the asserted patents are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 101.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpticurrent, LLC v On Semiconductor Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) \u0026ndash; represented On Semiconductor in one patent case relating to transistor accusations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnification Technologies LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. \u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDell\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolve BioSystems, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories \u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Ill.)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAbbott\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two patent case related to composition of infant formula. Final judgment entered after dispositive motion success.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnification Technologies LLC v. Silicon Motion Inc. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSilicon Motion\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein defending against four patents with accusations against memory technologies and a related\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArc Medical Design Ltd\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ev. Medivators Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eArc Medical\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOlympus Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two patent competitor case relating to medical device accusations. Case settled after successfully defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview (IPR) challenges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParadise IP LLC v. Box, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBox\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in six patent case related to document management accusations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRite-Hite Holding Corporation v Systems, LLC \u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Wis.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSystems\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in single patent case with accusations relating to vehicle restraints.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. (D.MD) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChargePoint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in four patent competitor case with accusations relating to electric vehicle charging stations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYeti Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRTIC Coolers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in design patent case.\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":"2026-05-13T21:32:43.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-13T21:32:43.000Z","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 }}Represent Micron Technology, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:{{ FIELD }}Unification Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented Micron as well as HP Inc. and Dell Technologies in defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in inter partes review (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., and D. Del) – representing Micron in a series of cases involving numerous patents with accusations related to memory technologies.{{ FIELD }}Represent DoorDash, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges. Representative cases include:{{ FIELD }}Fall Line Patents, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represent DoorDash in patent case and related ex partes review (EPR) challenge related to app feature accusations.{{ FIELD }}Represent Microsoft Corporation in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:{{ FIELD }}Exafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation (W.D. Tex.) – represent Microsoft in two patent case related to edge computing accusations.{{ FIELD }}Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation (N.D. Tex.) – represent Microsoft in eight patent case and related inter partes review (IPR) challenges related to networking accusations.{{ FIELD }}LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (W.D. Tex.) – represent Microsoft in two patent case and related inter partes review (IPR) challenges related to cache memory accusations.{{ FIELD }}Represented Apple, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:{{ FIELD }}Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Apple through a jury trial in a case where two patents were asserted against audio playback technology.{{ FIELD }}MicroUnity Systems Engineering Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (E.D. Tex) – represented Apple in a seventeen patent case that settled shortly before trial. Led strategy development applicable for Apple and large joint defense group of companies. Patent accusations related to Arm Neon Single Instruction, Multiple Data (SIMD) processor architecture and related features.{{ FIELD }}Vantage Point Technology v. Apple, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) – represented Apple in cases where three patents were asserted against processor instruction pipelining and cache memory related features. Led strategy development applicable for Apple and large joint defense group of companies. Cases settled shortly after successful transfer request moving the Apple cases to the Northern District of California.{{ FIELD }}Memory Integrity LLC v. Apple, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Apple in patent case with accusations related to cache memory. Represented Apple and also Amazon.com, HTC, and Samsung in successfully challenging the asserted patent in inter partes review (IPR) and defending that success on appeal at the Federal Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Represent VMware, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:{{ FIELD }}Safe Storage LLC v VMware, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented VMware in a case involving RAID memory technology accusations. Case settled after Federal Circuit appeal of inter partes review (IPR) challenge.{{ FIELD }}Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. VMware, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented VMware in two cases involving ten patents and accusations among virtual computing and networking features. Case settled after success in multiple inter partes review (IPR) challenges.{{ FIELD }}DesktopSites, Inc. v. VMware, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented VMware in a three-patent case involving virtualization accusations. Successful in obtaining an early-case dismissal after exposing significant flaws in infringement accusations.{{ FIELD }}Represented HP Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:{{ FIELD }}Unification Technologies LLC v. HP Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented HP Inc. in defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in inter partes review (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Industrial Print Technologies LLC v. HP Inc. (N.D. Tex.) – represented HP Inc. in Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case involving five asserted patents with accusations relating to document formatting and high-speed printing.{{ FIELD }}Abstrax, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company (E.D. Tex.) – represented HP in patent case involving accusations against HP’s manufacturing processes.{{ FIELD }}Super Interconnect Technologies LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company (E.D. Tex.) – represented HP in patent case involving accusations against CMOS drivers and on-chip termination.{{ FIELD }}Zenith Electronics LLC v. Sony Corporation (N.D. Ill.) – represented Zenith in a two patent competitor case with accusations relating to error tracking and digital televisions.{{ FIELD }}Vigilos, LLC v. Intel Corporation (N.D. Cal.) – represented Intel in in patent case involving accusations against a healthcare management system.{{ FIELD }}Catheter Flushing v Becton Dickinson and Company (D.UT) – represented Becton Dickinson in patent case with accusations against medical catheters.{{ FIELD }}Graceway Pharmaceuticals, LLC v Perrigo Company (D.NJ) – represented Graceway in patent case with accusation against pharmaceutical creams.{{ FIELD }}Roche Diagnostics v Nova Biomedical Corporation (D. Del.) – represented Nova Biomedical in three patent case with accusations involving blood glucose measurement devices and tradesecrets.{{ FIELD }}Represented The Chamberlain Group LLC in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include:{{ FIELD }}Overhead Door Corporation v. The Chamberlain Group LLC (N.D. Tex. and E.D. Tex.) – represented Chamberlain in multiple competitor cases, including a case that went through a jury trial and appeals. Multiple patents asserted and accusations related to garage door opener, security and networking features.{{ FIELD }}The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. (N.D. Ill. And ITC) – represented Chamberlain in competitor case involving patents and accusations related to garage door opener and networking features. Recognized by The American Lawyer’s “Litigator of the Week” on June 1, 2018 after successfully obtaining an award of treble damages, attorneys’ fees, injunction and costs. The Court stated after the jury trial that “this case was not close,” and observed that the defendant “lost on every issue at trial after less than two hours of jury deliberation.”{{ FIELD }}Other representative matters include:{{ FIELD }}Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Intuitive Surgical in two patent case related to surgical stapler accusations. Defended Intuitive through a jury trial. Successful in striking damages expert testimony and defending success on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Recognized by The American Lawyer’s “Litigator of the Week” on September 29, 2023 after successfully convincing the judge to strike plaintiff’s damages theory to only $1 and observe that the record was “wholly lacking in evidence” to determine a reasonable royalty rate.{{ FIELD }}Taasera Licensing v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (E.D. Tex. And S.D.N.Y.) – represented Palo Alto Networks in nine patent case related to network security feature accusations. Case consolidated as Judge Gilstrap’s first Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) matter. Case settled after successfully filing multiple inter partes review (IPR) and ex parte reexamination (EPR) challenges, and arguing key issues with respect to claim construction and 35 U.S.C. § 101 patent ineligibility.{{ FIELD }}Sol IP, LLC v. Ericsson Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Ericsson in 27 patent case related to 3G/4G telecom and WiFi accusations. Case settled after successfully filing multiple inter partes review (IPR) challenges.{{ FIELD }}Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. Hisense International Co., Ltd., (E.D. Tex.) – represented Hisense in series of cases involving twelve patents and accusations related to display and television features. Cases settled after successfully filing inter partes review (IPR) challenges.{{ FIELD }}ZapFraud, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Proofpoint in cases involving three patents and firewall and network security accusations. Successful in demonstrating that the asserted patents are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.{{ FIELD }}Opticurrent, LLC v On Semiconductor Corporation (N.D. Cal.) – represented On Semiconductor in one patent case relating to transistor accusations.{{ FIELD }}Unification Technologies LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented Dell in defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in inter partes review (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Evolve BioSystems, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories (N.D. Ill.) – represented Abbott in two patent case related to composition of infant formula. Final judgment entered after dispositive motion success.{{ FIELD }}Unification Technologies LLC v. Silicon Motion Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Silicon Motion in defending against four patents with accusations against memory technologies and a related inter partes review (IPR) challenge.{{ FIELD }}Arc Medical Design Ltd. v. Medivators Inc. (S.D. Tex.) – represented Arc Medical and Olympus Corporation in two patent competitor case relating to medical device accusations. Case settled after successfully defending inter partes review (IPR) challenges.{{ FIELD }}Paradise IP LLC v. Box, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented Box in six patent case related to document management accusations{{ FIELD }}Rite-Hite Holding Corporation v Systems, LLC (E.D. Wis.) – represented Systems in single patent case with accusations relating to vehicle restraints.{{ FIELD }}ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc. (D.MD) – represented ChargePoint in four patent competitor case with accusations relating to electric vehicle charging stations.{{ FIELD }}Yeti Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC (W.D. Tex.) – represented RTIC Coolers in design patent case.{{ FIELD }}Michael (“Mike”) is among the nation’s leading patent litigators, recognized for his ability to master and clearly explain highly complex technologies to courts, juries, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Drawing on his many years of industry experience in semiconductors and analytical chemistry, he brings exceptional technical fluency to every engagement. Mike has led approximately 200 patent-related matters, with particular depth in patent-heavy dockets in Texas and Delaware, as well as inter partes reviews, ex parte reexaminations, post-grant reviews, ITC investigations, and Federal Circuit appeals. His practice is regularly recognized, including by The American Lawyer (“Litigator of the Week”), Patexia, Best Lawyers in America®, Legal 500, and IAM Patent 1000. \nMike is a first-call resource for many companies for their most significant and complex patent and related matters. He regularly counsels clients across the semiconductor, memory, telecommunications, medical device, networking, and virtualization industries, with a particular strength in developing clear, jury-friendly trial themes. His practice is also distinguished by a deep command of standard-essential patent and FRAND/RAND litigation strategies, applied across a broad range of technologies.\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 litigation and Patent Office challenges.  For litigations: he routinely leads significant multi-patent cases for large technology and medical device clients from the pre-suit investigation stage through jury trials and ITC hearings.  For Patent Office challenges: he routinely assists his clients in researching the relevant technology and presenting successful arguments.  Mike has achieved great success for his clients across the country, including through developing key claim construction positions, obtaining compelling witness admissions, and presenting arguments and witnesses to court and juries.\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.\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 in a judicial foreclosure matter.  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 Represent Micron Technology, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include: Unification Technologies LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented Micron as well as HP Inc. and Dell Technologies in defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in inter partes review (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., and D. Del) – representing Micron in a series of cases involving numerous patents with accusations related to memory technologies. Represent DoorDash, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges. Representative cases include: Fall Line Patents, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represent DoorDash in patent case and related ex partes review (EPR) challenge related to app feature accusations. Represent Microsoft Corporation in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include: Exafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation (W.D. Tex.) – represent Microsoft in two patent case related to edge computing accusations. Lemko Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation (N.D. Tex.) – represent Microsoft in eight patent case and related inter partes review (IPR) challenges related to networking accusations. LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (W.D. Tex.) – represent Microsoft in two patent case and related inter partes review (IPR) challenges related to cache memory accusations. Represented Apple, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include: Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Apple through a jury trial in a case where two patents were asserted against audio playback technology. MicroUnity Systems Engineering Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (E.D. Tex) – represented Apple in a seventeen patent case that settled shortly before trial. Led strategy development applicable for Apple and large joint defense group of companies. Patent accusations related to Arm Neon Single Instruction, Multiple Data (SIMD) processor architecture and related features. Vantage Point Technology v. Apple, Inc., (E.D. Tex.) – represented Apple in cases where three patents were asserted against processor instruction pipelining and cache memory related features. Led strategy development applicable for Apple and large joint defense group of companies. Cases settled shortly after successful transfer request moving the Apple cases to the Northern District of California. Memory Integrity LLC v. Apple, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Apple in patent case with accusations related to cache memory. Represented Apple and also Amazon.com, HTC, and Samsung in successfully challenging the asserted patent in inter partes review (IPR) and defending that success on appeal at the Federal Circuit. Represent VMware, Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include: Safe Storage LLC v VMware, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented VMware in a case involving RAID memory technology accusations. Case settled after Federal Circuit appeal of inter partes review (IPR) challenge. Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. VMware, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented VMware in two cases involving ten patents and accusations among virtual computing and networking features. Case settled after success in multiple inter partes review (IPR) challenges. DesktopSites, Inc. v. VMware, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented VMware in a three-patent case involving virtualization accusations. Successful in obtaining an early-case dismissal after exposing significant flaws in infringement accusations. Represented HP Inc. in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include: Unification Technologies LLC v. HP Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented HP Inc. in defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in inter partes review (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Industrial Print Technologies LLC v. HP Inc. (N.D. Tex.) – represented HP Inc. in Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case involving five asserted patents with accusations relating to document formatting and high-speed printing. Abstrax, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company (E.D. Tex.) – represented HP in patent case involving accusations against HP’s manufacturing processes. Super Interconnect Technologies LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company (E.D. Tex.) – represented HP in patent case involving accusations against CMOS drivers and on-chip termination. Zenith Electronics LLC v. Sony Corporation (N.D. Ill.) – represented Zenith in a two patent competitor case with accusations relating to error tracking and digital televisions. Vigilos, LLC v. Intel Corporation (N.D. Cal.) – represented Intel in in patent case involving accusations against a healthcare management system. Catheter Flushing v Becton Dickinson and Company (D.UT) – represented Becton Dickinson in patent case with accusations against medical catheters. Graceway Pharmaceuticals, LLC v Perrigo Company (D.NJ) – represented Graceway in patent case with accusation against pharmaceutical creams. Roche Diagnostics v Nova Biomedical Corporation (D. Del.) – represented Nova Biomedical in three patent case with accusations involving blood glucose measurement devices and tradesecrets. Represented The Chamberlain Group LLC in multiple patent litigation matters and related Patent Office challenges and appeals. Representative cases include: Overhead Door Corporation v. The Chamberlain Group LLC (N.D. Tex. and E.D. Tex.) – represented Chamberlain in multiple competitor cases, including a case that went through a jury trial and appeals. Multiple patents asserted and accusations related to garage door opener, security and networking features. The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. (N.D. Ill. And ITC) – represented Chamberlain in competitor case involving patents and accusations related to garage door opener and networking features. Recognized by The American Lawyer’s “Litigator of the Week” on June 1, 2018 after successfully obtaining an award of treble damages, attorneys’ fees, injunction and costs. The Court stated after the jury trial that “this case was not close,” and observed that the defendant “lost on every issue at trial after less than two hours of jury deliberation.” Other representative matters include: Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Intuitive Surgical in two patent case related to surgical stapler accusations. Defended Intuitive through a jury trial. Successful in striking damages expert testimony and defending success on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Recognized by The American Lawyer’s “Litigator of the Week” on September 29, 2023 after successfully convincing the judge to strike plaintiff’s damages theory to only $1 and observe that the record was “wholly lacking in evidence” to determine a reasonable royalty rate. Taasera Licensing v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (E.D. Tex. And S.D.N.Y.) – represented Palo Alto Networks in nine patent case related to network security feature accusations. Case consolidated as Judge Gilstrap’s first Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) matter. Case settled after successfully filing multiple inter partes review (IPR) and ex parte reexamination (EPR) challenges, and arguing key issues with respect to claim construction and 35 U.S.C. § 101 patent ineligibility. Sol IP, LLC v. Ericsson Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Ericsson in 27 patent case related to 3G/4G telecom and WiFi accusations. Case settled after successfully filing multiple inter partes review (IPR) challenges. Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. Hisense International Co., Ltd., (E.D. Tex.) – represented Hisense in series of cases involving twelve patents and accusations related to display and television features. Cases settled after successfully filing inter partes review (IPR) challenges. ZapFraud, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Proofpoint in cases involving three patents and firewall and network security accusations. Successful in demonstrating that the asserted patents are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Opticurrent, LLC v On Semiconductor Corporation (N.D. Cal.) – represented On Semiconductor in one patent case relating to transistor accusations. Unification Technologies LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented Dell in defending against three patents with accusations against memory technologies. Successfully invalidated each asserted patent claim in inter partes review (IPR) challenges and defended that success on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Evolve BioSystems, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories (N.D. Ill.) – represented Abbott in two patent case related to composition of infant formula. Final judgment entered after dispositive motion success. Unification Technologies LLC v. Silicon Motion Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Silicon Motion in defending against four patents with accusations against memory technologies and a related inter partes review (IPR) challenge. Arc Medical Design Ltd. v. Medivators Inc. (S.D. Tex.) – represented Arc Medical and Olympus Corporation in two patent competitor case relating to medical device accusations. Case settled after successfully defending inter partes review (IPR) challenges. Paradise IP LLC v. Box, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – represented Box in six patent case related to document management accusations Rite-Hite Holding Corporation v Systems, LLC (E.D. Wis.) – represented Systems in single patent case with accusations relating to vehicle restraints. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc. (D.MD) – represented ChargePoint in four patent competitor case with accusations relating to electric vehicle charging stations. Yeti Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC (W.D. Tex.) – represented RTIC Coolers in design patent case.","searchable_name":"Michael Rueckheim (Mike)","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":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":448192,"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 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. [[--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\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\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":" ","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 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. [[--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\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\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":"2026-05-11T15:42:33.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-11T15:42:33.000Z","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 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.\n  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 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}]}}