Michael L. Lindinger

Michael previously worked as a patent examiner at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) where he examined patent applications in the fields of circuit board and time-keeping technologies. He also served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Thomas E. Hoffman of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District in Chicago, Illinois.

Clients served by Michael include Nestlé USA, Maxell, Ltd., and Weldbend Corporation.

• Boltex Manf. Co., L.P., et al. v. Ulma Piping USA Corp. (S.D. Tex.) – Represented plaintiffs (Boltex and Weldbend Corporation), the leading U.S. producers of pipeline components, against a foreign competitor falsely advertising its products as ASTM compliant.  After a two-week trial, the jury entered a unanimous, multi-million dollar verdict for our clients and the court subsequently entered a permanent injunction and recall (2020 WL 598284; 2020 WL 605321).
• Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE USA LLC (E.D. Tex.) – Obtained a jury verdict of $43.3 million for Maxell, with the jury finding willful infringement of all claims of all seven asserted patents covering digital image processing, GPS navigation, cellular transmission, and audio processing; assisted on technical issues and expert reports, and presented summary judgment/Daubert arguments.
• Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Maxell in the assertion of eight patents related to features incorporated in smartphones including wireless communications, GPS components, power management, and other functionality.  Case settled on favorable terms for client.
• Changzhou Kaidi Electrical Co., Ltd., et al. v. Okin America, Inc. (D. Md.) – Represented Kaidi and obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement for market leader in linear actuator technology; successfully defeated two motions for summary judgment of infringement and won summary judgment of no willful infringement leading up to trial.
• Defended one of the world’s largest ATM manufacturer and its customers in a four-patent case in the Northern District of Georgia involving ATM hardware and software functionalities allowing customers to make envelope-free deposits via an ATM; obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims; on appeal, the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement.
• Represented Plaintiff Impulse Technology Ltd. against a video game console and game manufacturer and other game manufacturers for infringement of seven patents directed to implementation of motion tracking technology in the District of Delaware.
• Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corp. (D. Del.) – Defended Philips during a three-week jury trial involving a multi-patent infringement case related to pulse oximetry technology.

Representative ITC Experience:

• Certain Smart Televisions (Inv. No. 337-TA-1338) – Defended complainant Maxell against a large consumer electronics company in a four-patent investigation related to various features and functionalities in smart televisions; settled on favorable terms for the client one week before the evidentiary hearing.
• Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-1106) – Assisted in analyzing technical issues for several respondents in seven-patent investigation related to printer cartridges; obtained summary determination of no infringement based on favorable claim construction, which was upheld on appeal at the Federal Circuit (Case No. 19-1950).
• Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-918) – Defended leading printer cartridge manufacturers in ITC investigation involving nine patents for laser toner cartridges.  Assisted in analyzing technical issues, drafting summary judgment briefing, and pre-hearing submissions that led to favorable settlement less than one week prior to the hearing.

Representative Patent Trial and Appeal Board Experience:

• Ten IPR petitions filed in 2020-2021 – Represented patentee, Maxell, against petitions brought by a consumer electronics company against patents relating to smartphone technology; six petitions were denied institution.
• ZTE Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd. (IPR petitions filed in 2018) – Persuaded the Board not to institute review on seven separate petitions for inter partes review of patents asserted by client in then-pending district court litigation related to smartphone technology.
• Fandango Media, LLC v. Maxell, Ltd. (IPR petitions filed in 2018) – Persuaded the Board not to institute review on one of two petitions for inter partes review of patents asserted by client in then-pending district court litigation related to digital streaming technology.

Representative Pro Bono Experience

• Currently appointed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to brief and argue a Section 1983 prisoner civil rights appeal.
• Multiple 7th Circuit Court of Appeals appointments for habeas corpus matters, each involving briefing on the merits and oral arguments (799 F.3d 889; 875 F.3d 832).
• First chaired an immigration matter involving an evidentiary hearing, including examinations of multiple witnesses (fact and expert), which resulted in the Court finding that my client should not be removed under the Convention Against Torture.
• First chaired a landlord-tenant matter involving a multi-day evidentiary hearing, and the case ultimately settled on favorable terms for nearly three dozen tenants.