Michael Lindinger is counsel in the Intellectual Property practice of Mayer Brown's Washington DC office. His practice focuses primarily on complex litigation in federal district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the US Patent and Trademark Office.
Michael has litigated a variety of disputes, such as patent infringement (including electrical arts, mechanical arts, and business methods), antitrust, Lanham Act (e.g., trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, false advertising), and general commercial issues, and is experienced in managing complex multi‐party litigations from filing to trial. He has argued at a jury trial, claim construction hearings, and before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals multiple times, second chaired multiple jury trials, and is experienced in pretrial discovery including depositions, expert reports, and motion practice.
Before entering law school, Michael worked for three years as a patent examiner at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). While at the USPTO, he examined patent applications in the fields of circuit board and time-keeping technologies.
During law school, he served as a staff editor for the John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. He also served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Thomas E. Hoffman of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District in Chicago, Illinois.
Michael has been recognized as a DC Super Lawyers Rising Star three times (2014-2017) for Intellectual Property.
Representative District Court Experience:
- Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2019) – Represented Maxell in assertion of eight patents related to features incorporated in smart phones including wireless communications, GPS components, power management, and other functionality. Case settled on favorable terms for client.
- Boltex Manf. Co., L.P., et al. v. Ulma Piping USA Corp. (S.D. Tex. 2017) – Represented plaintiffs, the leading US producers of pipeline components, against a foreign competitor falsely advertising its products as ASTM compliant. After a 2-week trial, the jury entered a unanimous, multi-million dollar verdict for our clients and the court subsequently entered a permanent injunction and recall.
- Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE USA LLC (E.D. Tex. 2016) – 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. 2016) – Represented Maxell in assertion of eight patents related to features incorporated in smart phones 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. 2015) – 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.
- Capital Security Systems v. NCR Corporation, et al. (N.D. Ga. 2015) – Defended NCR and its customers in a four-patent case involving the use of ATMs hardware and software functionality 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.
- Impulse Technology Ltd. v. Microsoft (D. Del. 2011) – Represented Impulse against Microsoft and other Xbox game manufacturers for infringement of 7 patents directed to implementation of motion tracking technology in Xbox Kinect and video games.
- Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corp. (D. Del. 2009) – Defended Philips during a three-week jury trial involving a multi-patent infringement case related to pulse oximetry technology.
Representative ITC Experience:
- Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC 2018) – 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 in May 2020.
- Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (ITC 2014) – 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 IPR Experience:
- Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd. (PTAB 2019-20) – Assisted with defense of ten IPR petitions, six of which were denied institution.
- ZTE Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd. (PTAB 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.
- Fandango Media, LLC v. Maxell, Ltd. (PTAB 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.
Representative Pro Bono Experience
- Multiple 7th Circuit Court of Appeals appointments for habeas corpus matters, each involving briefing on the merits and oral arguments.
- 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.
University of Illinois at Chicago John Marshall Law School, JD, cum laude
Associate Justice, Moot Court Honors Board, 2006-2007. The John Marshall Law School Review of Intellectual Property Law (RIPL), Staff Editor
Purdue University, BS, Mechanical Engineering
- District of Columbia
- US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
- US District Court for the District of Columbia
- US District Court for the Southern District of Texas
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit