Michael J. McKeon is a nationally recognized intellectual property and trial attorney. For more than 25 years, Michael has represented the world's most well-known high technology companies in their most complex and significant disputes, often with billions of dollars at stake.
He has successfully tried dozens of jury and bench trials leading trial teams in intellectual property matters in U.S. District Courts throughout the country and at the U.S. International Trade Commission. He also regularly appears on behalf of clients at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Michael has a long record of success representing clients in U.S. District Courts through jury trial wins, while also working to develop paths to victory before trial. He has successfully represented clients in over 50 ITC cases both as complainants (securing ITC exclusion orders against clients' competitors) and respondents (clearing clients of alleged violation). His results for his clients are often victory through complex, multi-forum strategies, including parallel actions in district and state courts as well as the ITC. In addition to his decades of trial work, Michael is a highly regarded strategist with a long track record of developing areas of law on behalf of his clients. Some notable examples include his work in the ITC and on appeal in pushing to change the well-entrenched ITC practice of issuing remedies against products of non-respondents, which resulted in the Federal Circuit's Kyocera decision. He has also worked across numerous ITC cases obtaining commission clarity on the appropriate scope of the domestic industry requirement in ITC proceedings.
After graduation from engineering school in 1990, Michael started his IP career as a patent examiner with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and continued to work full-time while attending law school at the George Washington University Law School where he graduated in the top 1% of his class. He was a judicial clerk to the Honorable William C. Bryson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Michael has been with Fish & Richardson since completing his clerkship where he has been instrumental in the firm's growth from 120 lawyers in a few offices to over 350 in a dozen offices nationwide. He is a member of the firm’s management committee.
Michael is an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School where he developed and is teaching the highly successful and first law school class in the country dedicated to Section 337 cases before the ITC. He also serves as chair of the intellectual property advisory board at the George Washington University Law School. In 2014, Michael was inducted into the University of Connecticut’s Academy of Distinguished Engineers and he currently serves as a member of the advisory board for UCONN's school of engineering.
Michael was born and raised in Niantic, Connecticut. He now lives with his wife in Alexandria, Virginia. He is a music lover and running enthusiast (including completing many marathons) and is passionate about the United States of America and its founding.
U.S. District Court Cases
Confidential Client – Led a trial team in defense of a large consumer electronics company in the Southern District of California against infringement claims relating to patents asserted to be MPEG standard essential. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict of no infringement clearing the company’s multi-billion dollar consumer electronics business. Also obtained summary judgment of no infringement in a follow on case. Successfully defended both victories at the Federal Circuit.
Confidential Client – Defended a large consumer electronics company in the District of Massachusetts against assertions of infringement against the company’s multi-billion dollar mobile products business. After a successful Markman hearing, obtained judgment of no infringement. Defended the judgment on appeal and obtained a ruling of invalidity of all claims in cross-appeal.
Confidential Client – Led a team representing a large semiconductor manufacturing company as complainant against a competitor. After trial and review, obtained an order excluding competitor’s Flash memory and its broad set of downstream consumer electronics products from entry into the United States. The case then favorably settled.
Multimedia Patent Trust v. LG Electronics. Inc., et al. (SDCA) – Defended LGE through trial and appeal in a patent case accusing LG’s video-capable cellular telephones.
Parallel Networks, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. et al (E.D. Tex/Fed Cir.) – Represented defendant Amazon.com and others through appeal in a patent infringement action.
Zenith Electronics LLC v. Sony Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex./N.D. Ca./N.D. Ill.) – Represented Zenith Electronics LLC in a patent case against Sony Corporation relating to digital television receivers.
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Sony Corporation (SDCA/CDCA) – Represented LGE in a patent case against Sony relating to Blu-ray disc players and digital television products.
Spansion LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Va./WD Wisc.) – Represented Samsung Electronics in a patent case related to Flash memory.
Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al (E.D. Tex.) – Defended Amazon.com, Inc. in a patent case accusing Amazon.com’s popular e-Commerce website and Kindle products.
Vizio, Inc. v. LG Electronics (D. MD) – Defended LGE in patent case accusing LGE’s digital televisions.
Hitachi Plasma Patent Licensing Co. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Defended LGE in a patent case accusing LGE’s plasma televisions.
International Business Machine Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) — Defended Amazon.com in a patent case accusing Amazon.com’s popular Internet shopping website.
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented LGE in a patent case against Hitachi relating to car audio/visual and navigation products.
Antor Media Corporation v. LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) — Defended LGE in a patent case accusing to content downloads to mobile phones.
Zoltar Satellite Systems, Inc. v. LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex/ND Cal.) — Defended LGE in a patent case accusing e911 systems in mobile phone networks.
Charles E. Hill & Associates v. AOL et al. (E.D. Tex.) — Defended AOL Time Warner, Inc. in a patent case accusing its on-line shopping services.
Ciena Corporation v. Corvis Corporation (D. Del.) — Represented Ciena in patent infringement case relating to dense wave division multiplexing optical communications systems.
Toshiba Corporation v. Juniper Networks, Inc et al. (D. Del.) — Defended Juniper in a patent case relating to router technology.
Cargill, Incorporated v. Canbra Foods, Ltd., Dow AgroSciences Canada Inc., and Dow AgroSciences LLC (D. Oregon) — Represented Cargill in a patent case relating to specialty canola oil.
Microsoft v. Ultimate Game Club, Ltd. (D. Conn.) — Represented Microsoft in a patent case relating to its XBOX video game system.
Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. v. Covad Communications (E.D. Va.) — Defended Covad Communications in a patent case relating to DSL technology.
Scripps International, Ltd. v. First Alert, Inc. (E.D. Va.) — Represented Scripps International in a patent infringement case relating to alarm systems.
Siemens Business Communication Systems v. Harris Corporation (E.D. Va.) — Represented Siemens in patent infringement case relating to telecommunications switching equipment.
International Trade Commission, Section 337 Investigations
Confidential Client – Represented a large consumer electronics company against a well-known NPE that held a portfolio of mobile SEPs. Convinced the ITC to terminate an investigation based on a prior arbitration agreement, thus freeing the client of exclusion risk. Defended the ruling on appeal with the Federal Circuit reversing the ITC but the U.S. Supreme Court granting certiorari and vacating the appellate ruling. In parallel, brought action in the Delaware Court of Chancery for breach of contract claims and defended those claims in argument before the Supreme Court of Delaware. The multi-jurisdictional, multi-year dispute was eventually successfully resolved through settlement after an AAA arbitration initiated by Mr. McKeon in New York.
Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-853 – Represented LG in ITC investigation through trial and final Commission review against complainants TPL, Patriot Scientific, and Phoenix Digital System and their infringement assertion of a patent related to variable speed system clocks in microprocessors.
Certain Electronic Devices Having A Digital Television Receiver and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-774) – Represented Complainant Zenith Electronics Ltd. against Sony entities seeking exclusion of Sony digital television receivers.
Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and Monitors II (Inv. No. 337-TA-765) – Defended Respondent LGE against patent infringement claims brought by Sony Electronics seeking exclusion of LGE’s digital television products.
Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-764) – Represented Complainant LGE against Sony entities seeking exclusion of Sony digital television products.
Certain Mobile Telephones and Modems (Inv. No. 337-TA-758) – Defended respondent LG Electronics in patent case brought by complainant Sony Corp. seeking to exclude LGE’s mobile products implementing standard-based wireless technologies (UMTS/WCDMA, LTE, and CDMA2000).
Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-735)- Defended respondent Samsung Electronics against patent infringement claims brought by Spansion LLC seeking exclusion of Samsung’s NAND Flash Memory Chips and downstream products containing those chips manufactured by Samsung and Samsung customers.
Certain Flat Panel Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-733) — represented respondents LG Electronics in a patent case brought by Vizio seeking exclusion of LGE’s digital televisions implements QAM standard transmission technology.
Certain Video Displays, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. ITC Inv. 337-TA-687) – Represented Complainant LG Electronics seeking exclusion of digital televisions imported by Vizio, Inc. and AmTran.
Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Cameras, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-663) – Defended Respondent LG Electronics against patent infringement claims brought by Eastman Kodak seeking exclusion of LGE’s popular cellular telephone products.
Certain Electronic Devices Having Image Capture or Display Functionality and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-672) – Represented Complainant LG Electronics against Eastman Kodak seeking exclusion of Kodak’s digital camera products.
Certain Flash Memory Devices and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Such Devices and Components (Inv. No. 337-TA-552) — Defended respondent Hynix Semiconductor against patent infringement claims brought by Toshiba Corp. seeking exclusion of Hynix’ Flash memory products.
Certain Semiconductor Devices, DMA Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-607) — Represented Complainant Samsung Electronics against Renesas Technology in a patent case relating to semiconductors and DMA systems.
Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-595) — Defended Respondent Samsung Electronics against patent infringement claims brought by Renesas Technology Corp. seeking exclusion of Samsung’s DRAM products.
Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, and Products Containing Same, including Cellular Telephone Handsets (Inv. No. 337-TA-543) – Represented LG Electronics as an intervenor through appeal in a case brought by Broadcom Corp. against Qualcomm accusing Qualcomm’s baseband processor chips, which are components used in LGE’s cellular telephone handsets.
Certain Display Controllers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-491) — Represented complainant Genesis Microchip in a patent case against a number of Taiwanese companies seeking exclusion of display controller chips and downstream monitors containing the chips.
Certain Video Game Systems, Accessories, And Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-473) — Represented complainant Microsoft in a patent case seeking exclusion of products employing features from XBOX video game system.
Certain CMOS Active Pixel Image Sensors and Products Containing Same – (Inv. No. 337-TA-451) — Represented complainants Photobit Corporation and Caltech in a patent case seeking exclusion of camera products employing active pixel sensors.
Certain Optical Waveguide Fibers and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-410) — Defended respondent Plasma Optical Fibre (from the Netherlands) in a patent case brought by Corning seeking exclusion of fiber optic cables.
Recognitions & awards
Best Lawyers in America
D.C. Metro Litigator of the Year
Managing Intellectual Property (MIP)
World's Leading Patent Practitioners
Who's Who Legal
IAM Patent 1000
Lawyer of the Year for Patent Litigation
Washington, D.C. Super Laywer
Top 100 in Washington, D.C.
Appellate Hot List for representation at Federal Circuit
National Law Journal (NLJ)
Intellectual Property Trailblazer and Pioneer
National Law Journal (NLJ)
National Law Journal’s Legal Times
Mike "is a highly rated trial lawyer with expertise acting before the ITC and an impressive client roster featuring a number of household-name companies in the technology sector. Sources call him a 'smart and engaging lawyer.'" — 2021 Chambers and Partners
Mike "is a dynamic first-chair litigator" and is "an excellent relationship partner and is terrific in the courtroom." "He plans effectively, provides valuable insight and produces excellent results." — 2020 Chambers and Partners
"Mike is brilliant in court." — 2019 IAM Patent 1000
"Mike is an excellent trial lawyer. He has high energy, is quick on his feet and has a deep understanding of the ITC. He expertly handled incredibly complex matters." — 2018 Chambers and Partners
"McKeon's 'high-energy and tenacious' style lends itself well to ITC patent litigation, but he is 'very comfortable in any courtroom' and has prevailed in many a district court, as well as before the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit." — 2017 IAM Patent 1000