Michael D. Hatcher

MICHAEL HATCHER focuses his practice on patent and trade secret litigation at both the trial and appellate levels, with an emphasis on electronics and telecommunications cases, as well as drug and biologic patents cases, including pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act. He has extensive experience counseling clients on intellectual property issues, and also litigates trademark, breach of contract, and Internet domain name disputes. Mike has represented companies in patent, trade secret, and intellectual property matters spanning a variety of technologies, including semiconductors, power converters, telecommunications (including cellular and WiFi aspects), resin-impregnated paper manufacturing, contact lenses, pharmaceuticals, biologics, food products, oil field equipment, and diapers.

Mike holds a B.S. in electrical engineering and physics. Before attending Georgetown Law School, Mike flew jets for the U.S. Air Force, and then worked for a defense contractor as a systems engineer designing military flight simulators. After graduation, he clerked for Chief Judge Edmondson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Mike has consistently been recognized by Managing IP as a Texas “Patent Star,” most recently in its 2025 IP Stars edition (2023–2025).

Representative experience includes:

SYNQOR, INC.

• SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn et al. ’497 Case (E.D. Tex.) — Handling counsel for discovery and infringement, and trial co-counsel, for SynQor in patent infringement jury trial against 11 suppliers of DC-DC power converters. Jury ruled on behalf of SynQor and awarded more than US$95 million in damages. Court awarded supplemental damages and permanent injunction. Affirmed in full on appeal to Federal Circuit.
• SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn et al. ’444 Case (E.D. Tex.) — Handling counsel for infringement and damages, and trial co-counsel, for SynQor in follow-on action for post-’497 trial continued infringement and contempt of ’497 permanent injunction. Court awarded damages for additional infringements and Federal Circuit affirmed.
• Lineage v. SynQor, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) — Handling counsel for discovery, infringement/non-infringement and invalidity/validity for SynQor in patent infringement suit and countersuit involving seven Lineage patents and three SynQor patents, all relating to power converters. Case settled during pretrial.
• SynQor, Inc. v. Cisco and Vicor (E.D. Tex.) — Handling counsel for discovery and infringement, and trial co-counsel, for SynQor in patent infringement actions involving, among others, ’497 case patents. One defendant settled at the preliminary injunction phase and Cisco and Vicor claims were divided into two causes of action for trial. Cisco settled the week before trial was set to begin. After a six year stay due to challenges at the Patent Office, the case against Vicor was restarted in 2021, supplemental discovery completed, and tried to a jury in October 2022. Jury found willful infringement and awarded US$6.5 million in damages.  Parties are currently engaged in post-trial motion practice.

STMICROELECTRONICs

• The Trustees of Purdue University v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. et al (W.D. Tex.) — Handling counsel for offensive discovery and pretrial proceedings, and trial co-counsel, for ST in a patent infringement case filed by Purdue before Judge Albright involving silicon carbide power MOSFETs. Case tried to a jury in November 2023 and parties are currently awaiting rulings on equitable defenses and engaged in post-trial procedures.  

HEWLETT-PACKARD ENTERPRISE

• WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (W.D. Tex.) — Handling counsel for claim construction and discovery for HPE in a series of seven cases filed by WSOU before Judge Albright. WSOU asserted a different patent against a different set of HPE products in each case. WSOU dismissed the last of the seven cases on March 28, 2022, with expert reports due later that week. WSOU had previously dismissed the six other cases/patents at various stages of the cases (two after claim constructions, and four towards the end of fact discovery).

ARCLIN USA, LLC

• Arclin USA, LLC v. Vits Technology GmbH and Huber Engineered Woods, LLC (N.D. Ga.) — Handling counsel, and preliminary injunction hearing co-counsel, for Arclin in breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation case. Obtained preliminary injunction after expediated discovery and hearing conducted over Zoom in April 2020, shortly after COVID pandemic started. Fact discovery thereafter proceeded and case settled.

KONINKLIJKE DSM N.V. (ROYAL DSM)

• Huvepharma EOOD et al v. Koninklijke DSM N.V. et al (D. Del.) — Lead counsel for DSM in a patent infringement case filed by Huvepharma involving additive for animal feed. Obtained dismissal with prejudice early in case.  

SK HYNIX, INC.

• Certain Memory Modules And Components Thereof, And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 1023 (U.S. ITC) — Handling counsel for discovery and pre-trial activities, and trial co-counsel, for Respondents SK hynix companies in patent infringement action brought by Netlist involving DDR4 LRDIMM and RDIMM memory modules for high-end servers. Hearing conducted May 2017. ALJ found no infringement of any patent and Commission confirmed, which the Federal Circuited affirmed on appeal.
• Certain Memory Modules And Components Thereof, Inv. No. 1089 (U.S. ITC) — Handling counsel for discovery and pre-trial activities, and trial co-counsel, for Respondents SK hynix companies in second patent infringement action brought by Netlist involving DDR4 LRDIMM and RDIMM memory modules for high-end servers asserting continuation patents to the patents asserted in the 1023 Investigation. The Commission ultimately found no infringement of any patent, and that many of the asserted claims were invalid.
• Netlist, Inc. v. SK hynix, Inc. et al. (C.D. Ca.) — Handling counsel for discovery for defendant SK hynix companies in companion district court case brought by Netlist with its ITC action. SK hynix pursued RAND counter-claims. This case settled as part of a global settlement between Netlist and SK hynix.
• SK hynix, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc. (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) — Counsel for different aspects of seventeen (17) petitions for Inter Partes Review against thirteen (13) patents owned by Netlist relating to various aspects of DIMM memory modules. Ten (10) petitions instituted, and others abandoned post-settlement.
• Netlist, Inc. v. SK hynix, Inc. et al., No. 194 (W.D. Tex.) — Handling counsel for defendant SK hynix companies in district court case brought by Netlist after Netlist lost two ITC actions above. SK hynix pursued RAND counter-claims. Case proceeded through claim construction and fact and expert discovery. This case settled as part of a global settlement between Netlist and SK hynix.
• Netlist, Inc. v. SK hynix, Inc. et al., No. 525 (W.D. Tex.) — Handling counsel for defendant SK hynix companies in another district court case brought by Netlist after Netlist lost two ITC actions above. SK hynix pursued RAND counter-claims. Case proceeded through claim construction and fact and expert discovery. This case settled as part of a global settlement between Netlist and SK hynix.

ENERGY COMPANY

• Energy Company v. Vendor (Arbitration) — Trial co-counsel for arbitration involving breach of contract and other claims regarding design and manufacture of equipment for energy project. Presented and crossed various witnesses. Arbitrator ruled in our client’s favor.

AMADOR

• Amador v. City of Irving and Javier Villagomez (Tex. St. Ct.) — Lead pro bono counsel for Ms. Amador in lawsuit against City of Irving and contractor Javier Villagomez asserting breach of contract claim regarding work performed on Ms. Amador’s home pursuant to housing rehabilitation loan program administered by City. Obtained settlement from Villagomez. City was initially dismissed on governmental immunity grounds. Obtained reversal on appeal, establishing new law to overcome governmental immunity assertions. City then settled as well.

CANADIAN SOLAR

• Certain Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules with Nanostructures, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 1271 (U.S. ITC) — Handling counsel for discovery and pre-trial activities for Respondents Canadian Solar companies in patent infringement action brought by Advanced Silicon Group involving solar cells for solar modules. Hearing conducted April 2022. ALJ found no infringement of any patent and Commission confirmed.

LONGi

• Certain Photovoltaic Cells and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 1151 (U.S. ITC) — Handling counsel for discovery and pre-trial activities for Respondents LONGi companies in patent infringement action brought by Hanwha involving solar cells for solar modules. Summary judgment of non-infringement obtained and affirmed on appeal.

APPLE INC.

• Apple Inc. v. ZiiLabs (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) — Handling counsel for all aspects of twelve (12) petitions for Inter Partes Review against nine (9) patents, from nine (9) different families, owned by ZiiLabs relating to various aspects of graphical processing units. Seven (7) petitions settled pre-institution and remaining settled post-institution decision.
• Long Corner Consumer Electronics LLC v. Apple Inc. (E.D. Tex.) — Handling counsel for all aspects of case for defendant Apple in patent infringement suit involving patent allegedly relating to computer input devices for manipulating an object on a graphical user interface using a pointing device. Case settled.

MERCK

• Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al (D. Del.) — Counsel for various aspects of discovery and pre-trial activities for defendant Merck in patent infringement case involving PD-1 cancer immunotherapeutic Keytruda®. Case settled pretrial.

MICROSOFT CORP.

• Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) — Handling counsel for four (4) petitions for Inter Partes Review against two (2) patents owned by Parallel Networks relating to Web servers. All grounds in all four (4) petitions were instituted and final written decisions finding all claims patentable were overturned on appeal to the Federal Circuit and remanded.

BLACKBERRY / RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP.

• MOSAID v. Research In Motion Corp. et al. (E.D. Tex.) — Handling counsel for all aspects of case for defendant RIM in multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving six (6) patents allegedly relating to 802.11 standards. Case dismissed as to RIM.
• Innovative Sonic v. Research In Motion Corp. et al. (N.D. Tex.) — Counsel assisting with pretrial aspects for defendant RIM in patent infringement suit involving patents allegedly relating to 3G standards. Case settled.

AT&T CORP.

• Nomadix v. Wayport et al. (C.D. Cal.) — Handling counsel for damages for defendant Wayport (AT&T subsidiary) in multi-defendant patent infringement suit involving seven (7) patents relating to gateways for connecting to the Internet at WiFi hotspots. Case settled.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON

• Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Kali et al. (D.N.J.) — Counsel for patent holder Ortho-McNeil in series of Hatch-Waxman ANDA patent infringement suits involving drug Ultracet®. Cases settled.
• Alza Corp. et al. v. Impax Labs., Inc. et al. (D. Del.) — Counsel for discovery, and trial co-counsel, for patent holders Alza and McNeil PPC in Hatch-Waxman ANDA patent infringement suit involving drug Concerta®. Case resolved after trial and appeal.
• The Rockefeller University and Chiron Corporation v. Centocor, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) — Counsel for defendant Centocor in patent infringement case involving chimeric antibody technology. Case settled as to Centocor.

CIBA VISION CORP.

• CooperVision v. CIBA Vision Corp. (E.D. Tex.) — Handling counsel for discovery, non-infringement and invalidity for defendant CIBA Vision in patent infringement suit on five (5) patents relating to design of toric contact lenses and edges of contact lenses. Case settled pretrial.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC

• SmithKline Beecham PLC et al. v. Teva et al. (D.N.J) — Counsel for various aspects of discovery for SmithKline Beecham, SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc. and SmithKline Beecham Corp. in series of Hatch-Waxman ANDA patent infringement suits involving drug Avandia®. Cases settled.

STAR SCIENTIFIC, INC.

• Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. (Fed. Cir.) — Appellate co-counsel for validity issues for plaintiff-appellee Star Scientific in appeal from jury verdict finding Star Scientific patents on tobacco curing processes anticipated, obvious, indefinite, invalid for failure to disclose best mode and not infringed. Obtained reversal on all invalidity grounds by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

FREEBIE, INC.

• Freebie, Inc. et al. v. Freebies Publishing et al. (E.D. Va.) — Counsel for various aspects of case for plaintiff Freebie seeking declaration that its freebie.com website did not violate Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act or Lanham Act, and cancellation of defendants’ incontestable registered FREEBIES trademark. Obtained summary judgment in favor of Freebie, including cancellation of defendants’ incontestable registered trademark as generic.