Michael T. Zoppo

Background

Michael T. Zoppo is a Principal in Fish & Richardson’s New York office. A registered patent lawyer, his practice focuses on the trial and appeal of patent cases, as well as related counseling in the areas of financial services, electrical/computer engineering, materials science, automotive technologies, and semiconductors. In addition to patent cases, he litigates trade secret, Lanham Act, breach of contract, defamation, and fraud cases. Before Michael focused his practice on litigation and counseling, he spent several years prosecuting patent applications in technical disciplines such as power systems, chemistry, aircraft propulsion, and semiconductors.

Michael has served as lead counsel in cases with millions of dollars at stake. For example, he represented an accused infringer facing over a billion dollars in alleged damages. In that case, Michael led pre-trial proceedings that forced the patentee to consent to adverse judgment moments before opening statements. The favorable judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and the District Court awarded over six million dollars in attorneys’ fees to Michael’s client. This win was profiled by the National Law Journal in its selection of Fish & Richardson to its 2015 Intellectual Property Hot List. In a case where his client faced both patent and non-patent claims leading to a damages model well into the nine figures, Michael obtained complete summary judgment of non-infringement leading to an extremely favorable settlement of all claims against his client. Michael has extensive courtroom experience, including trial work, arguing all manner of pre-trial motions, and leading numerous Markman hearings. As lead trial counsel, Michael has handled direct and cross-examinations, as well as the opening statement and closing argument.

In addition to representing such entities in litigation, Michael has counseled national exchanges, insurance companies, and banks concerning their intellectual property portfolios. He has been brought in to oversee the prosecution of key patent applications as well as to guide portfolio development and monetization.

Before entering the legal field, Michael founded a startup that offered web-based auction services.

Services

Industries

Education

J.D., Rutgers School of Law - Newark 2004
Managing Editor, Rutgers Law Review

B.E., Stevens Institute of Technology 2001
Materials Engineering

with honors (First in major)

B.A., Stevens Institute of Technology 2001
Philosophy
with honors

Admissions

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
New Jersey
New York
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Other Distinctions

Interviewee, “Fish & Richardson Scores Patent Victory with Motions in Limine,” IPWatchdog, April 8, 2013.

Quoted in, “How They Won It: Fish Torpedoes $400M Patent Suit,” April 24, 2013.

Interviewee, “Protecting IP Innovation in the Financial Services Sector,” March 2015, The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, Vol. 23 No. 3.

Quoted in, “IP Boutiques Adjust to Client Use of Patent Office Reviews,” New York Law Journal, October 5, 2015

Quoted in, “7 Ways To Survive an Alice Patent Challenge,” IP Law360, December 15, 2015.

Quoted in, “Wall Street is Trying to Beat Silicon Valley at Its Own Game,” Bloomberg Businessweek, February 11, 2016.

Selected publications

What Patents Can Be Challenged in the Patent Office as “Covered Business Methods”?, Fish Litigation Blog (February 24, 2017).

“Technological innovation in financial services,” Fish Litigation Blog (March 10, 2014).

“eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.: New Standard for Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases,” with C. Sandhu, Bright Ideas, 15, 2 (Fall 2006).

Awards

Selected as a 2017 “Rising Star” by the New York Law Journal.

Selected by his peers as a Super Lawyers New York Rising Star from 2013-2017 for IP litigation, a recognition that less than three percent of the attorneys in New York receive.

Experience

USAA v. Mitek Systems Inc. (W.D. Tex.): In a landmark case focused on remote deposit capture technology, Michael served as lead patent counsel for USAA, defending against Mitek’s allegations of patent infringement. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for all asserted patents. Also represented USAA on claims of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, defamation, and fraud.

Asghari-Kamrani v. USAA (E.D. Va.): Serving as lead counsel for USAA, defending against allegations of infringing a patent relating to two-factor authentication. Obtained order invalidating the patent-in-suit under Alice.

Smart Authentication IP v. USAA (E.D. Tex.): Serving as lead counsel for USAA, defending against allegations of infringing a patent relating to two-factor authentication.

St. Isidore v. USAA (E.D. Tex.): Served as lead patent counsel for USAA, defending against allegations of infringing patents relating to two-factor authentication.

Annuitek LLC v. USAA Life Insurance Company (E.D. Tex.): As lead counsel, represented USAA in a patent litigation concerning the pricing of annuity contracts.

Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC v. USAA (N.D. Ill. and W.D. Tex.): Representing USAA in a patent litigation concerning cross-platform messaging. Final judgment entered in USAA’s favor, and obtained attorneys’ fees.

Novozymes A/S and Novozymes North America, Inc. v. C T E Global, Inc., (N.D. Ill.): Represented plaintiff-patentee Novozymes in litigation against U.S. importer of glucoamylase industrial enzymes (used in the manufacture of fuel ethanol) and obtained permanent injunction.

Chicago Board Options Exchange v. International Securities Exchange (N.D. Ill.): As co-lead counsel, represented the Chicago Board against ISE in a litigation concerning a patent on a fully computerized exchange. ISE consented to judgment in CBOE’s favor right before opening statements were to begin. Judgment of non-infringement was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and the district court awarded over six million dollars in attorneys’ fees to CBOE.

Realtime Data v. Chicago Board Options Exchange (S.D.N.Y.): As lead counsel, represented the Chicago Board against Realtime Data in a litigation concerning patents on data compression, particularly regarding financial data.

C2 Options Exchange v. International Securities Exchange (N.D. Ill.): Represented the C2 Exchange in a litigation concerning a patent on a fully computerized exchange.

Layne Christensen v. The Purolite Company (D. Kan.): Represented water purification company in litigation involving allegations of patent infringement and breach of contract.

Certain Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (USITC 337-TA-516): Represented hard disk drive manufacturer in investigation involving servo technology, magnetic media, and mechanical structures contained in micro-disc drives.

Seagate Technology LLC v. Cornice, Inc. – (D. Del.): Represented hard disk drive manufacturer in investigation involving servo technology, magnetic media, and mechanical structures contained in micro-disc drives

Represented a semiconductor manufacturer in multiple litigations concerning doping of wide band gap semiconductors, commonly used in light emitting diodes and laser diodes.

Represented a DRAM manufacturer in litigation concerning patents directed to increasing bandwidth.

view all