Send to a friend

Mike is a partner specializing in intellectual property litigation, with over 17 years of experience in a broad array of Lanham Act, patent, copyright and trade secret disputes. 

He has been frequently named as one of California's top intellectual property litigators, including in surveys published by Los Angeles Magazine and California Lawyer Magazine.  He has been named as one of Southern California's Top Lawyers every year since 2007 as well.  In 2009, Mike received the prestigious California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) award for "extraordinary achievements" in intellectual property litigation.  Mike was featured in the January 2010 issue of The American Lawyer, which named Quinn Emanuel as the "Top Intellectual Property Firm in the U.S.," and in the January 2010 issue of IP Law & Business magazine.

Mike is admitted to the State Bars of California, Illinois and New York and regularly practices in the federal courts in those jurisdictions as well as the TTAB.  He also routinely litigates cross-border intellectual property disputes.

Representing Mattel, Inc. in its highly-publicized copyright action against MGA Entertainment, manufacturer of "Bratz" dolls, and Carter Bryant, Bratz's creator.  Won key summary judgment rulings confirming that Mattel owned works made by Bryant while a Mattel employee pursuant to Mattel's inventions agreement.  After a three-month trial, won a unanimous jury verdict that Bryant had created the "Bratz" name and virtually all Bratz design drawings, prototypes and sculpts while he was a Mattel employee and therefore were Mattel's property.  Further won jury verdicts of copyright infringement, tortious interference with contract and other business torts in Mattel's favor and a damages award to Mattel in excess of $100 million.  Subsequently obtained an injunction prohibiting MGA's further manufacture and sale of Bratz dolls and requiring MGA to recall infringing products from retail shelves.  Won an additional injunction barring MGA from using the term "Bratz" for any goods and services and court orders transferring all worldwide rights (and all registrations) in the "Bratz" mark to Mattel.   Also defeated a separate action brought by Bryant, both individually and as a purported class action, that sought to invalidate Mattel's employee inventions agreements and obtained a decision that upheld the propriety of Mattel's agreements.
 

Won jury verdict in patent case for Mentor Corp., a leading medical device manufacturer.  Jury found that the client's medical method patent was valid, enforceable and willfully infringed and awarded approximately $5 million in damages.  Verdict upheld by Federal Circuit.

Obtained $80 million verdict for Avery Dennison in the Northern District of Ohio against Taiwanese adhesive manufacturer that had misappropriated numerous trade secrets over the course of several years.  The Taiwanese manufacturer and its principals were also convicted under the Economic Espionage Act in parallel criminal proceedings -- representing the first convictions ever under that Act. Verdict upheld by Sixth Circuit.

In patent suit against telecommunications providers involving prepaid wireless technology, won judgment of $128 million, along with additional award of $35 million in interest and royalties and entry of permanent injunction.  Reported decisions include:  Freedom Wireless v. Boston Communications Group, 390 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D. Mass. 2005) (rejecting inequitable conduct defenses after entry of jury verdict and after bench trial); 369 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D. Mass. 2005) (ruling that abandoned patent application and evidence regarding alleged constructive reduction to practice was inadmissible); 369 F. Supp. 2d 155 (D. Mass. 2005) (excluding opinion testimony proffered by defendants); 220 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D. Mass. 2002) (denying defendants' summary judgment motion challenging ownership of patents-in-suit).

Currently representing Google Inc. in several intellectual property cases.  These include Perfect 10 v. Google, a copyright, trademark and right of publicity suit in which plaintiff asserts that Google's Image Search, Web Search and Blogger products purportedly infringe tens of thousands of images.  These also include LimitNone v. Google, in which plaintiff alleges trade secret theft and other claims involving the GoogleApps suite of application programs.  Reported decisions include 551 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2008). 

Successfully defended eBay against claims for trademark infringement involving web site search.  Won summary judgment for eBay in the District Court, and then a Ninth Circuit affirmance.  Appellate decision reported at:  511 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2007).

In cross-border actions in the U.S. and Germany, defeated former owner's claims seeking to rescind the assignment of copyright and patent rights that formed the basis of Mattel's BARBIE product line.  Reported decisions include Mattel, Inc. v. Greiner & Hausser, 354 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2003).

In suit alleging reversion of previously assigned copyright and trademark ownership rights to the famous UNO game, won summary judgment for Mattel on bulk of plaintiffs' claims, which plaintiffs asserted were worth in excess of $75 million.  Case subsequently settled on terms that included entry of final judgment declaring client's exclusive, superior rights to the UNO properties.
 

Successfully defended Borland in suit alleging Lanham Act and related claims in connection with computer programming software.  After winning summary judgment on key aspects of plaintiff's case and obtaining favorable in limine rulings, including an order precluding plaintiff's damages expert from testifying on Daubert and other grounds, case settled on terms favorable to client.

Successfully defended Napster against patent infringement suit involving file download technology, including by petitioning for re-examination that resulted in final rejection of the patent-in-suit.  In related litigation involving the intersection between trademark and bankruptcy law, also defeated assignment-in-gross challenges to validity of Napster's federal registrations for, and its ownership rights to, the NAPSTER marks that had been acquired in Chapter 11 proceedings.

Successfully defended IBM against copyright infringement claims based upon use of database software tool.  Defeated plaintiff's efforts to assert extraterritorial claims and damages, which ultimately resulted in settlement that included a perpetual, worldwide license to use the software tool.

Won judgment in first suit ever involving the EU's design rights law.  The Court ruled that Mattel's design rights and UK copyrights were valid and infringed.  Among other relief, the Court issued an EU-wide injunction, barring defendants from further sales of infringing goods and directing a recall of the infringing goods from retailers, distributors and other customers.  Total damages recovered were in excess of $2 million, along with attorney's fees awards.  Also won preliminary and then permanent injunctions for Mattel in parallel copyright actions in the U.S., Hong Kong, France and the Netherlands that included recall of the infringing goods from retail shelves.

Obtained dismissal with prejudice of claims against AOL Time Warner alleging contributory and vicarious copyright infringement based upon "Gnutella" information sharing software.

As appellate counsel, won decision by Second Circuit vacating district court bench trial verdict against client in copyright infringement case that had been litigated at trial level by a different firm.

Won dismissal with prejudice of suit brought against Mattel in the Northern District of Illinois by competitor alleging trade dress infringement of die-cast replica cars and false advertising.  In addition, in actions in Italy and California involving FERRARI patent, trademark and trade dress rights brought against that competitor, obtained on Mattel's behalf a final judgment that included worldwide injunction against infringement and payment of monetary damages in confidential amount.

Won for Disney a dismissal with prejudice, on first amendment and other grounds, against §17200 and other unfair competition claims that were based on Disney's classic animated features, ranging from Pinocchio to The Little Mermaid.