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.
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.
Fish Litigation Blog
February 24, 2017
What Patents Can Be Challenged in the Patent Office as “Covered Business Methods”?
Authors: Michael T. Zoppo, Brian J. Doyle, Thomas Rozylowicz
February 17, 2017
Fish Files Amicus Brief in Support of Challenge to Immigration Executive Order
July 14, 2016
Fish & Richardson Wins Dismissal of Patent Infringement Case Against USAA Over Patent for Verifying Online Transactions
April 4, 2016
Fish & Richardson Wins Over $6 Million in Attorneys’ Fees for Chicago Board Options Exchange in Multi-Year Patent Dispute With ISE
December 22, 2014
Fish & Richardson Wins Attorneys’ Fees for Chicago Board Options Exchange in Multi-Year Patent Dispute With ISE
December 14th, 2016 | 10:00 am EST
Webinar | IP Perspectives - Comparative Review: US and China's Trade Secret Laws
July 22nd, 2015 | 11:25 am EDT
12th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit
March 1, 2015
Q&A with Michael Zoppo: Protecting IP Innovation in the Financial Services Sector
Author: Michael T. Zoppo
February 12, 2015
Principal Michael Zoppo Featured in The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel’s “Protecting IP Innovation in the Financial Services Sector”
July 23rd, 2014
11th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit
April 8, 2014
Fish & Richardson Obtains Federal Circuit Affirmance of Patent Infringement Win for the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
March 21, 2013
Fish Wins Patent Infringement Case in Favor of the Chicago Board Options Exchange