MICHAEL D. HATCHER leads the IP Litigation group in the firm’s Dallas office. Mr. Hatcher’s practice focuses on patent litigation at the trial (district court, ITC and Patent Office) 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. Mr. Hatcher also litigates trade secret, trademark and Internet domain name disputes, and counsels clients on intellectual property issues. Mr. Hatcher has represented companies in patent and intellectual property matters spanning a variety of technologies, including semiconductors, power converters, telecommunications (including cellular and WiFi aspects), contact lenses, pharmaceuticals, biologics, food products, oil field equipment and diapers. Mr. Hatcher has a B.S. in electrical engineering and physics. Before attending Georgetown Law School, Mr. Hatcher 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.
- 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 $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. Discovery is closed against Vicor, but the trial is currently stayed.
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. Netlist currently appealing to Federal Circuit.
- 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. ALJ granted SK hynix’s motion for summary determination of non-infringement based on issue preclusion. Netlist currently petitioning the Commission for review.
- 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 is pursuing RAND counter-claims. Discovery ongoing, trial scheduled for 2018.
- SK hynix, Inc. v. Netlist, Inc. (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) — Counsel for different aspects of seventeen (17) petitions for Inter Partes Review against eleven (13) patents owned by Netlist relating to various aspects of DIMM memory modules. Ten (10) petitions instituted, awaiting decisions on another five (5).
- 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.
- 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. 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. Currently awaiting PTAB decisions on remand.
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.
- 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.
- 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. 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.