- Overview
- Experience
- Insights
- Recognition
About Mike
Michael T. Hawkins is a principal in the Twin Cities office of Fish & Richardson P.C. His practice emphasizes post-grant proceedings, pre-suit investigations, U.S. and foreign patent portfolio strategy and management, patentability analysis, clearance investigations, intellectual property licensing and agreements, and due diligence investigations. Mr. Hawkins is a specialist in inter partes reviews/post-grant proceedings, representing both patent owners and third party challengers in numerous proceedings, including serving as lead counsel for Google, ResMed, Huawei, Samsung, Microsoft, and Arctic Cat in various post-grant proceedings. He develops strategic, cost-effective solutions for these clients to achieve their business goals and/or litigation objectives/settlements. Not only does Mr. Hawkins represent a number of Fortune 100 companies, but his work also focuses on strategic counseling for emerging companies to develop a comprehensive approach to intellectual property, such as conducting freedom to operate studies, obtaining patent protection in the U.S. and abroad, and planning defensive and offensive strategies. In addition to his victories in his field, Mr. Hawkins was recognized in “The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners” by IAM Patent 1000, where he was singled out nationally as a leading attorney for post-grant proceedings (2020). He has also been recognized as an “Up & Coming” lawyer by Minnesota Lawyer, and as a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers Magazine (Minnesota 2016).
Publications
- “What the PTAB Precedent Panel Said in Its First Decision,” Law360 (April 2, 2019)
- “Implementing Strategies for an Offensive Patent Portfolio,” Journal of Industrial Biotechnology, Vol. 6, No. 3 pp. 141-43 (2010)
- “Prosecution Laches in the Wake of Symbol Technologies: What is ‘Unreasonable and Unexplained’ Delay?” 87 Minn. L. Rev. 1621 (2003)
Speaking Engagements
- “Techniques For Achieving An Efficient And Effective Freedom-to-Operate Analysis” Fish Webinar (June 3, 2020)
- “How Do Supreme Court Decisions Really Affect Patent Applicants? A Statistical Analysis” Patents on Tap (November 29, 2018)
- “Overview of IPRs and Post-grant Proceedings” (October 12, 2018)
- “The Upcoming Supreme Court Decision in Helsinn v. Teva: Can Secret Sales Invalidate a Patent?” Patents on Tap (September 13, 2018)
- “Berkheimer v. HP: A Favorable Shift for Software and Medical Methodology Patents?” Fish Webinar (July 19, 2018)
- “Berkheimer v. HP: A Favorable Shift for Software and Medical Methodology Patents?” Patents on Tap (June 21, 2018)
- “Overview of IPRs and Post-grant Proceedings” (April 9, 2018)
Media Mentions
- Quoted, “Ban on IPR Time-Bar Tricks Will Spur New Strategies,” Law360 (March 20, 2020)
- Quoted, “PTAB Rulings Show Potential New Way To Defeat AIA Reviews,” Law360 (April 9, 2019)
- Quoted, “Checking In On SAS Institute 6 Months Later,” Law360 (November 30, 2018)
- Quoted, “6 Weeks After SAS Institute: Here’s What We Know,” Law360 (June 8, 2018)
- Named, “PTAB Agrees to Review Part of Polaris ATV Patent,” Law360 (July 5, 2017)
- Named, “PTAB Invalidates Claims In Polaris ATV Patent,” Law360 (January 31, 2017)
- Named, “Law360‘s Weekly Verdict: Legal Lions & Lambs,” Law360 (December 1, 2016)
- Named, “Fed. Circ. Backs Google, Samsung PTAB Win On Graphics IP,” Law360” (November 29, 2016)
- Named, “Apple, Google, Samsung Get Mapping Patent Win At PTAB,” Law360 (September 21, 2016)
- Named, “Arctic Cat Wins Ax of Rival’s ATV Patent Claims at PTAB,” Law360 (February 4, 2016)
- Named, “Google, Samsung Get Graphics Patents Axed in AIA Review,” Law360 (June 17, 2015)
- Quoted, “Apple, Samsung, Lead Charge to Kill Infringement Lawsuits by Going to Patent Office,” Daily Journal (June 4, 2015)
- Named, “Google, Samsung Get Another Micrografx Patent Axed,” Law360 (July 22, 2015)
- Named, “PTAB Nixes Warsaw Spine Implant Patent in AIA Review,” Law360 (December 22, 2014)
Post-Grant Proceedings
Nokia Solutions and Networks OY, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., IPR2017-00592
Nokia Solutions and Networks OY, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., IPR2017-00593
Nokia Solutions and Networks OY, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., IPR2017-00590
Nokia Solutions and Networks OY, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., IPR2017-00591
Nokia Solutions and Networks OY, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., IPR2017-00673
Nokia Solutions and Networks OY, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., IPR2017-00698
Nokia Solutions and Networks OY, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., IPR2017-00671
Nokia Solutions and Networks OY, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., IPR2017-00658
Nokia Solutions and Networks OY, et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., IPR2017-00675
Google Inc., et al.v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., IPR2017-00815
Google Inc., et al.v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., IPR2017-00816
Google Inc., et al.v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., IPR2017-00817
Google Inc., et al.v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., IPR2017-00818
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01729
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01725
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01719
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01716
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01735
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01727
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01734
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01731
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01730
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01726
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01718
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01714
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01723
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01717
ResMed Corp., et al. v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd., IPR2016-01724
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-01658
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-01659
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00632
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00634
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00635
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00501
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00504
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00340
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00272
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00215
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00218
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00061
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00062
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00064
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00065
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00057
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Ltd. v. ResMed Ltd., IPR2017-00059
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2017-00559
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2017-00537
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2017-00536
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2017-00535
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2017-00534
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2017-00533
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2017-00532
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2017-00530
Google Inc. v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, IPR2017-00529
Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc., IPR2017-00455
Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc., IPR2017-00433
Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc., IPR2017-00199
Google Inc. v. Makor Issues, IPR2016-01537
Google Inc. v. Makor Issues, IPR2016-01536
Google Inc. v. Makor Issues, IPR2016-01535
Google Inc. v. Klaustech, IAG., CBM2016-00096
Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01300
Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01086
Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01085
Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01084
Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, LLC, IPR2016-01083
Google Inc. v. Porto Technology Co. Ltd., IPR2016-00045
Google Inc. v. Porto Technology Co. Ltd., IPR2016-00022
Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc., IPR2015-01789
Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc., IPR2015-01788
Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc., IPR2015-01783
Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc., IPR2015-01781
Google Inc. et al. v. American Navigational Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00851
Google Inc. et al. v. American Navigational Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00849
Arctic Cat Inc. v.Polaris Industries Inc., IPR Case No. IPR2014-01427
Arctic Cat Inc. v.Polaris Industries Inc., IPR Case No. IPR2014-01428
Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR2014-01338
Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR2014-01339
Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR2014-01340
Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR2014-01341
Google Inc. v. MicroGrafx LLC, IPR Case No. IPR2014-00532
Google Inc. v. MicroGrafx LLC, IPR Case No. IPR2014-00533
Google Inc. v. MicroGrafx LLC, IPR Case No. IPR2014-00534
NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-201300208
NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-201300206
NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-201300395
NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-201300396
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-201300504
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-201300506
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-201300487
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-201300507
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR-2013-00508
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00034
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00035
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00071
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00073
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00074
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00075
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00076
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00081
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00087
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Wasica Finance GMBH et. al., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00295
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Wasica Finance GMBH et. al., IPR Case No. IPR2014-01454
Schrader Int’l, Inc. et. al. v. Wasica Finance GMBH et. al., IPR Case No. IPR 2014-00476
Schrader Int’l, Inc. et. al. v. Wasica Finance GMBH et. al., IPR Case No. IPR2015-00272
Reexamination Proceedings
Google Inc. v. Intertainer, Inc., Control No. 95/000,313
Google Inc. v. Streetspace, Inc., Control No. 95/001,763
Requester v. Klaustech, Inc., Control No. 90/011,303
Requester v. Suffolk Technologies LLC, Control No. 90/012,714
Requester v. Suffolk Technologies LLC, Control No. 90/012,427
NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., Control No. 95/000,451
NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., Control No. 95/000,449
NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., Control No. 95/000,448
NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., Control No. 95/000,446
NuVasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., Control No. 95/002,346
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., Control No. 95/001,247
Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., Control No. 95/001,202
Nest Labs, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., Control No. 95/002,040
Nest Labs, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., Control No. 95/002,041
USTC LLC v. Horian, Control No. 95/000,134
Kwiktwist Int’l, Inc. v. Handle It LLC, Control No. 90/007,077 (power of attorney after close of prosecution)
- Named a “Leading Patent Professional” and recommended for post-grant proceedings by IAM Patent 1000 (2020-2022)
- Recognized as a “Rising Star – Minnesota” by Super Lawyers (2016-2017)
- Recognized as “Up & Coming Lawyer” by Minnesota Lawyer (2013)
Services
- IP Licensing, Transactions, and Agreements
- Patent
- Post-Grant
- Opinions and Strategic Counseling
- Patent Portfolio Management
- Patent Prosecution
- Appellate
- Patent Litigation
Industries
J.D. magna cum laude, University of Minnesota Law School (2004) Managing Editor, Minnesota Law Review
B.S. with high distinction, Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota (2000)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2015
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 2005
- Minnesota 2004
What's trending with Mike
Filter by
-
News
September 8, 2022
Fish & Richardson Receives Top Rankings in 2022 Edition of IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals
-
News
July 7, 2021
Fish & Richardson Receives Top Rankings in 2021 Edition of IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals
-
News
January 25, 2021
Fish & Richardson Named #1 PTAB Law Firm of 2020 by Managing Intellectual Property
-
News
August 12, 2020
Fish & Richardson Receives Top “Gold” Ranking from IAM Patent 1000 for National Litigation Practice; National Rankings in the Plaintiff Firm and Prosecution Firm Categories
-
Event
June 3rd, 2020 | 1:30 pm EDT
Webinar | Techniques For Achieving An Efficient And Effective Freedom-to-Operate Analysis
-
Event
November 5th, 2019 | 8:00 am EST
IAM Patent Litigation 2019
-
News
December 4, 2018
Michael Hawkins Quoted in Law360 Article "Checking In On SAS Institute 6 Months Later"
-
Event
November 29th, 2018
Patents on Tap
-
Event
September 13th, 2018 | 4:00 pm CDT
Patents on Tap | The Upcoming Supreme Court Decision in Helsinn v. Teva: Can Secret Sales Invalidate a Patent?
-
Event
July 19th, 2018 | 1:00 pm EDT
Webinar | Berkheimer v. HP: A Favorable Shift for Software and Medical Methodology Patents?
-
Event
June 21st, 2018
Patents on Tap | Berkheimer v. HP: A Favorable Shift for Software Patents and Medical Methodology Patents?
-
Event
March 15th, 2018 | 4:00 pm EDT
Patents on Tap | Do IPR Proceedings Violate the Constitution?