Michael G. Flanigan

Counsel | He/Him/His

Overview

Based in San Francisco, Michael G. Flanigan assists clients in technology and intellectual property litigation throughout the United States. He has broad experience in federal and state courts, including post-grant proceedings (Inter Partes Reviews and post-grant reviews) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Section 337 proceedings before the International Trade Commission (ITC).

Michael focuses his practice on complex civil and high-stakes intellectual property/high technology litigation in both state and federal courts. Michael also has experience in Section 337 proceedings before the International Trade Commission (ITC). Michael’s practice centers around intellectual property litigation, including pre-trial strategy, patent and trade secret enforcement, patent defense, patent consulting and monetization, and patent portfolio analysis.

Michael utilizes his background in electrical engineering and computer science to advise tech companies in cloud technology, consumer electronics, telecommunications, software, computer architecture, medical devices, and other technical fields. Michael’s practice also encompasses complex civil disputes such as contracts and business; real property or land disputes; misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright and trademark disputes.

Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, Michael spent nearly a decade in private practice at elite national trial law firms, where he represented clients in high-stakes patent, trade secret, competition and complex commercial disputes through trial in the fields of cloud technology, consumer electronics, telecommunications, software, computer architecture, and other technical fields.

Committed to pro bono representation, Michael continues to support clients of low-income families in housing disputes.

Career & Education

|
    • Illinois
      Legal Fellow, Office of the Governor, 2011–2013
    • Illinois
      Legal Fellow, Office of the Governor, 2011–2013
    • Embedded Software Engineer, Boston Scientific, 20072008
    • Adjunct Professor/Teaching Assistant, Medical Innovations, Northwestern School of Law, 20102012
    • Engineering Intern for various medical device, aircraft, and manufacturing companies
    • Embedded Software Engineer, Boston Scientific, 20072008
    • Adjunct Professor/Teaching Assistant, Medical Innovations, Northwestern School of Law, 20102012
    • Engineering Intern for various medical device, aircraft, and manufacturing companies
    • Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, J.D.,
      • Executive Production Editor, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property
      • Dean’s List, Senior Research Honors
      • Historian, Black Law Student Association
    • University of Southern California, M.S., computer networks, 2006
      • Co-Founder/Secretary Officer, Minority Engineering Graduate Association
    • North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University, B.S., summa cum laude, electrical engineering & computer science, 2004
      • Dean’s List, Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society, Golden Key Honor Society, Eta Kappa Nu
      • Co-Webmaster, Association of Computing Machinery
      • Member, National Society of Black Engineers, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
    • Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, J.D.,
      • Executive Production Editor, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property
      • Dean’s List, Senior Research Honors
      • Historian, Black Law Student Association
    • University of Southern California, M.S., computer networks, 2006
      • Co-Founder/Secretary Officer, Minority Engineering Graduate Association
    • North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University, B.S., summa cum laude, electrical engineering & computer science, 2004
      • Dean’s List, Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society, Golden Key Honor Society, Eta Kappa Nu
      • Co-Webmaster, Association of Computing Machinery
      • Member, National Society of Black Engineers, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
    • California
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
    • Illinois
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
    • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
    • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
    • California
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
    • Illinois
    • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
    • U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
    • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
    • Board of Directors, California Dragon Boat Association, 2018Present
    • Vice-Chair, Board of Directors, Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto, 2023Present
    • Ambassador Council, California Minority Counsel Program, 2023Present
    • Board of Directors, California Dragon Boat Association, 2018Present
    • Vice-Chair, Board of Directors, Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto, 2023Present
    • Ambassador Council, California Minority Counsel Program, 2023Present

Michael's Insights

Client Alert | 8 min read | 08.21.23

The Conclusion of Am. Axle.: Considerations Relating to Section 101 Patent Eligibility in the Context of Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning

In July 2023, the District of Delaware in Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC brought a long-running, closely-watched dispute to a close, leaving in its wake several guideposts for patent applicants and owners alike, including those pioneering technologies in the space of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML).[1] ...

Representative Matters

  • Represented a Canadian cloud optimization software company in patent and trademark litigation in district court over virtualization software, leading to a substantial jury verdict.
  • Represented a Canadian cloud optimization software company before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), leading to a favorable outcome.
  • Represented a web technology company in patent litigation in district court over backend web technology, leading to a jury verdict.
  • Represented a Chicago technology company in patent litigation in district court over cloud storage technology.
  • Represented a quartz slab manufacturer in a design patent litigation before U.S. International Trade Commission Section 337, leading to a favorable outcome.
  • Represented an LTE cellular device manufacturer before U.S. International Trade Commission Section 337.
  • Represented touch feedback technology (“haptic technology”) company in patent litigation in district court over haptic feedback technologies.
  • Represented a U.S. wireless and radio frequency (RF) technology company in patent litigation in district court over RF wireless and communication network technologies.
  • Represented an information and communication technology manufacturer in patent litigation in district court over telecommunication hardware and software network technology.
  • Represented a networking company in patent litigation in district court over networking technologies.
  • Advised a major product digitization and cloud-based solutions manufacturer in relation to the cloud technology and intellectual property landscape.  

Michael's Insights

Client Alert | 8 min read | 08.21.23

The Conclusion of Am. Axle.: Considerations Relating to Section 101 Patent Eligibility in the Context of Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning

In July 2023, the District of Delaware in Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC brought a long-running, closely-watched dispute to a close, leaving in its wake several guideposts for patent applicants and owners alike, including those pioneering technologies in the space of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML).[1] ...

Michael's Insights

Client Alert | 8 min read | 08.21.23

The Conclusion of Am. Axle.: Considerations Relating to Section 101 Patent Eligibility in the Context of Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning

In July 2023, the District of Delaware in Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC brought a long-running, closely-watched dispute to a close, leaving in its wake several guideposts for patent applicants and owners alike, including those pioneering technologies in the space of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML).[1] ...