{"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":2839},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Atlanta's John Marshall Law School","value":2830},{"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":"Bond University","value":2841},{"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":"Bucerius Law School, Germany","value":2898},{"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":"Chicago-Kent College of Law","value":3050},{"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":"College of Law, Guildford, UK","value":2646},{"name":"College of Law, London, UK","value":2647},{"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":"Delhi University","value":3099},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Durham University","value":2708},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University","value":2936},{"name":"ELTE University Budapest","value":2969},{"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":3039},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"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 School of Law","value":2259},{"name":"Free University Berlin","value":2903},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"Fudan University","value":2986},{"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":"Guildhall University, London","value":2863},{"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":"Inns of Court School of Law, UK","value":2649},{"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":"Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany","value":2653},{"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":"King Saud University College of Law \u0026 Political Sciences","value":2823},{"name":"King's College London","value":2987},{"name":"King's College, University of London, UK","value":2654},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Leiden University","value":2926},{"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":"Liverpool University, UK","value":2657},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"London School of Economics and Political Science, UK","value":2658},{"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":"Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich","value":3105},{"name":"Lund University","value":3084},{"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":"Monash University, Australia","value":3047},{"name":"Monash University, Australia","value":2660},{"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":"New York University School of Law","value":2715},{"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":"Oxford University, UK","value":2669},{"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":"Queen's University Faculty of Law","value":2801},{"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":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":2725},{"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":"Sciences Po Paris","value":2925},{"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 Manchester","value":2845},{"name":"The University of Melbourne","value":2836},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2752},{"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 del Rosario, Bogotá Colombia","value":2677},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Iberoamericana","value":2915},{"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":"Université Catholique de Louvain, Licencie en Droit","value":3213},{"name":"Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium","value":2679},{"name":"Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne","value":2680},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University College London, UK","value":2760},{"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 Augsburg","value":2779},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of Bonn, Germany","value":2682},{"name":"University of Bristol, UK","value":2761},{"name":"University of Buenos Aires, Argentina","value":2683},{"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 Cambridge, UK","value":2684},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Cape Town, South Africa","value":2854},{"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 Cologne, Germany","value":2885},{"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 Deusto, Spain","value":2685},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of East London","value":2963},{"name":"University of Exeter, UK","value":2770},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3112},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Hamburg, Germany","value":2688},{"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 at Chicago School of Law","value":2202},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kent at Canterbury, UK","value":2690},{"name":"University of Kent","value":2849},{"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 Law","value":2954},{"name":"University of Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Lima","value":2859},{"name":"University of London","value":2692},{"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 Maryland School of Law","value":2739},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":3064},{"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 New South Wales","value":2871},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Nottingham, England","value":2881},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Otago, New Zealand","value":2694},{"name":"University of Paris II, Pantheon-Assas, France","value":2695},{"name":"University of Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne","value":3190},{"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 Sheffield","value":2805},{"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 Sydney, Australia","value":2700},{"name":"University of Tasmania","value":2835},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Tokyo","value":3153},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Turku","value":3083},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Warwick, UK","value":2771},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Western Australia","value":2949},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2755},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wollongong, Australia","value":2873},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"University Toulouse Capitol","value":3109},{"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":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":"10","capability_id":null,"extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"R","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":445446,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6346,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on complex civil litigation, with a concentration representing\u0026nbsp;food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged good clients as well as matters involving accounting and financial issues. He has experience in a wide range of litigation, including jury trials, appeals, matters with governmental agencies and internal investigations. Having served as general counsel for a global food company, Mike has a unique perspective that leads to a practical and creative approach to optimize results for clients.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike began his career trying cases for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Western District of Virginia, and has focused on representing clients in litigation, regulatory and white-collar matters, and investigations. Mike has regularly practiced in state and federal trial and appellate courts in false advertising and employment class actions, professional liability cases, trade secret misappropriation and other complex litigation, including in actions relating to alleged contaminants in products (heavy metals, glyphosate, PFAS, mycotoxins, phthalates). Mike has also represented clients before FDA and USDA in connection with ingredient labeling, recall-related issues and the National Organic Program.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter more than 15 years representing clients in high stakes litigation, Mike transitioned to general counsel of a globally branded food manufacturing company.\u0026nbsp; The company also opened several quick serve restaurant locations during his time there. As part of his role, Mike had responsibility for food safety and regulatory affairs and worked with in-house and outside experts to conduct root cause analyses and develop corrective and preventative actions. This experience provides valuable insight into the daily challenges faced by clients, including developing and executing a strategic approach to litigation and other dispute resolution, as well as developing creative approaches and proactive measures that can be taken to avoid disputes in the first place.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-resch","email":"mresch@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKind LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein multiple class actions in New York and Illinois District Courts challenging a product name and ingredient name.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured victory for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCampbell Soup\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a false advertising class action in the Northern District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBolthouse Farms\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eutilizing preemption defense against organic labeling allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully obtained dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChobani\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Northern District of California in class action with respect to the labeling of Greek yogurt products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a Big 4 accounting firm in arbitration arising out of claims scrutinizing firm's audit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured victories for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against numerous class actions alleging false advertising based on an ingredient name.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended food manufacturers\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein donning/doffing class actions in California state court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented more than 10 clients in the food and beverage industry in connection with FDA draft guidance and related written comments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUSDA meetings and related written submissions in connection with organic ingredient labeling.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped a food manufacturing company's comprehensive Covid-19 response plan, including planning safety, regulatory and litigation strategy and opening a Covid-19 vaccine clinic\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Resch","nick_name":"Michael","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2484,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1999-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on complex civil litigation, with a concentration representing\u0026nbsp;food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged good clients as well as matters involving accounting and financial issues. He has experience in a wide range of litigation, including jury trials, appeals, matters with governmental agencies and internal investigations. Having served as general counsel for a global food company, Mike has a unique perspective that leads to a practical and creative approach to optimize results for clients.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike began his career trying cases for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Western District of Virginia, and has focused on representing clients in litigation, regulatory and white-collar matters, and investigations. Mike has regularly practiced in state and federal trial and appellate courts in false advertising and employment class actions, professional liability cases, trade secret misappropriation and other complex litigation, including in actions relating to alleged contaminants in products (heavy metals, glyphosate, PFAS, mycotoxins, phthalates). Mike has also represented clients before FDA and USDA in connection with ingredient labeling, recall-related issues and the National Organic Program.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter more than 15 years representing clients in high stakes litigation, Mike transitioned to general counsel of a globally branded food manufacturing company.\u0026nbsp; The company also opened several quick serve restaurant locations during his time there. As part of his role, Mike had responsibility for food safety and regulatory affairs and worked with in-house and outside experts to conduct root cause analyses and develop corrective and preventative actions. This experience provides valuable insight into the daily challenges faced by clients, including developing and executing a strategic approach to litigation and other dispute resolution, as well as developing creative approaches and proactive measures that can be taken to avoid disputes in the first place.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKind LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein multiple class actions in New York and Illinois District Courts challenging a product name and ingredient name.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured victory for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCampbell Soup\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a false advertising class action in the Northern District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBolthouse Farms\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eutilizing preemption defense against organic labeling allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully obtained dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChobani\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Northern District of California in class action with respect to the labeling of Greek yogurt products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a Big 4 accounting firm in arbitration arising out of claims scrutinizing firm's audit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured victories for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against numerous class actions alleging false advertising based on an ingredient name.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended food manufacturers\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein donning/doffing class actions in California state court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented more than 10 clients in the food and beverage industry in connection with FDA draft guidance and related written comments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUSDA meetings and related written submissions in connection with organic ingredient labeling.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped a food manufacturing company's comprehensive Covid-19 response plan, including planning safety, regulatory and litigation strategy and opening a Covid-19 vaccine clinic\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9733}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-01-31T22:03:15.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-31T22:03:15.000Z","searchable_text":"Resch{{ FIELD }}Defended Kind LLC in multiple class actions in New York and Illinois District Courts challenging a product name and ingredient name.{{ FIELD }}Secured victory for Campbell Soup in a false advertising class action in the Northern District of Florida.{{ FIELD }}Defended Bolthouse Farms utilizing preemption defense against organic labeling allegations.{{ FIELD }}Successfully obtained dismissal for Chobani in the Northern District of California in class action with respect to the labeling of Greek yogurt products.{{ FIELD }}Defended a Big 4 accounting firm in arbitration arising out of claims scrutinizing firm's audit.{{ FIELD }}Secured victories for Amy’s Kitchen against numerous class actions alleging false advertising based on an ingredient name.{{ FIELD }}Defended food manufacturers in donning/doffing class actions in California state court.{{ FIELD }}Represented more than 10 clients in the food and beverage industry in connection with FDA draft guidance and related written comments.{{ FIELD }}USDA meetings and related written submissions in connection with organic ingredient labeling.{{ FIELD }}Developed a food manufacturing company's comprehensive Covid-19 response plan, including planning safety, regulatory and litigation strategy and opening a Covid-19 vaccine clinic{{ FIELD }}Mike’s practice focuses on complex civil litigation, with a concentration representing food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged good clients as well as matters involving accounting and financial issues. He has experience in a wide range of litigation, including jury trials, appeals, matters with governmental agencies and internal investigations. Having served as general counsel for a global food company, Mike has a unique perspective that leads to a practical and creative approach to optimize results for clients.\nMike began his career trying cases for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Western District of Virginia, and has focused on representing clients in litigation, regulatory and white-collar matters, and investigations. Mike has regularly practiced in state and federal trial and appellate courts in false advertising and employment class actions, professional liability cases, trade secret misappropriation and other complex litigation, including in actions relating to alleged contaminants in products (heavy metals, glyphosate, PFAS, mycotoxins, phthalates). Mike has also represented clients before FDA and USDA in connection with ingredient labeling, recall-related issues and the National Organic Program.  \nAfter more than 15 years representing clients in high stakes litigation, Mike transitioned to general counsel of a globally branded food manufacturing company.  The company also opened several quick serve restaurant locations during his time there. As part of his role, Mike had responsibility for food safety and regulatory affairs and worked with in-house and outside experts to conduct root cause analyses and develop corrective and preventative actions. This experience provides valuable insight into the daily challenges faced by clients, including developing and executing a strategic approach to litigation and other dispute resolution, as well as developing creative approaches and proactive measures that can be taken to avoid disputes in the first place. Partner Pepperdine University Pepperdine University School of Law Washington and Lee University Washington and Lee University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia California District of Columbia Defended Kind LLC in multiple class actions in New York and Illinois District Courts challenging a product name and ingredient name. Secured victory for Campbell Soup in a false advertising class action in the Northern District of Florida. Defended Bolthouse Farms utilizing preemption defense against organic labeling allegations. Successfully obtained dismissal for Chobani in the Northern District of California in class action with respect to the labeling of Greek yogurt products. Defended a Big 4 accounting firm in arbitration arising out of claims scrutinizing firm's audit. Secured victories for Amy’s Kitchen against numerous class actions alleging false advertising based on an ingredient name. Defended food manufacturers in donning/doffing class actions in California state court. Represented more than 10 clients in the food and beverage industry in connection with FDA draft guidance and related written comments. USDA meetings and related written submissions in connection with organic ingredient labeling. Developed a food manufacturing company's comprehensive Covid-19 response plan, including planning safety, regulatory and litigation strategy and opening a Covid-19 vaccine clinic","searchable_name":"Michael L. Resch","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"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":441704,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5505,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRachel Rubens is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Environmental and\u0026nbsp;Toxic Tort group\u0026nbsp;and is located in the San Francisco office. Rachel has represented corporate defendants in a wide array of complex matters in the\u0026nbsp;pharmaceutical, automotive, and chemical industries. Her practice is primarily focused on complex product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRachel received her J.D. from University of California, Davis, where she served as an Articles Editor on the UC Davis Law Review and a competitor in the Seigenthaler-Sutherland National First Amendment Moot Court Competition.\u0026nbsp; In 2019, Rachel was an extern for the Honorable Justice Mariano Florentino Cuellar of the California Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"rachel-rubens","email":"rrubens@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Rubens","nick_name":"Rachel","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Rachel","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2160,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2020-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":2,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-rubens-811a56b5/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRachel Rubens is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Environmental and\u0026nbsp;Toxic Tort group\u0026nbsp;and is located in the San Francisco office. Rachel has represented corporate defendants in a wide array of complex matters in the\u0026nbsp;pharmaceutical, automotive, and chemical industries. Her practice is primarily focused on complex product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRachel received her J.D. from University of California, Davis, where she served as an Articles Editor on the UC Davis Law Review and a competitor in the Seigenthaler-Sutherland National First Amendment Moot Court Competition.\u0026nbsp; In 2019, Rachel was an extern for the Honorable Justice Mariano Florentino Cuellar of the California Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9458}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-10-27T19:11:24.000Z","updated_at":"2025-10-27T19:11:24.000Z","searchable_text":"Rubens{{ FIELD }}Rachel Rubens is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Environmental and Toxic Tort group and is located in the San Francisco office. Rachel has represented corporate defendants in a wide array of complex matters in the pharmaceutical, automotive, and chemical industries. Her practice is primarily focused on complex product liability and toxic tort litigation. \nRachel received her J.D. from University of California, Davis, where she served as an Articles Editor on the UC Davis Law Review and a competitor in the Seigenthaler-Sutherland National First Amendment Moot Court Competition.  In 2019, Rachel was an extern for the Honorable Justice Mariano Florentino Cuellar of the California Supreme Court. Associate University of Miami University of Miami School of Law University of Miami University of Miami School of Law University of California-Davis UC Davis School of Law U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California California","searchable_name":"Rachel Rubens","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}]}}