Michael Plimack joined the firm in 1987 and is Co-Practice Group Leader of the Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group.

Experience

Mr. Plimack has litigated and advised clients on patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret protection. Mr. Plimack has been lead counsel in patent infringement trials in United States District Court and the International Trade Commission. Mr. Plimack has briefed and argued appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Plimack has also prosecuted several criminal jury trials on assignment to the San Francisco District Attorney's Office.

Representative Engagements

• Barry W. Thomas v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al., 3:05-CV-510-K, (W.D. N.C.). The firm represents Samsung in this patent infringement case involving cellular telephones. 
• Silvaco Data Systems v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., 1-05-CV-053615, (Super. Ct., Santa Clara County). The firm represents Hewlett-Packard in this trade secret case involving electronic design automation (EDA) technology. 
• ISCO International, Inc. v. Conductus, Inc. and Superconductor Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 04-487 (GMS)(D. Del). The firm represented Superconductor Technologies in this patent infringement case involving cryogenically-cooled receivers used in mobile radio systems.
• Depomed, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, C02-0336 WHA (N.D. Cal.) and Depomed, Inc. v. IVAX Corporation, et al., 06-0100-CRB (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Depomed in this patent infringement litigation involving oral drug delivery systems.
• Inline Connection Corporation v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc., et al., 2:05CV205 HCM (E.D. Va.). This firm represents Inline Connection Corporation in this patent infringement action concerning DSL technology.
• Affymetrix, Inc. v. Multilyte, Ltd., C03-3779 WHA (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Multilyte in this patent infringement case involving microarray technology.
• Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. Litigation, No. 1:06-543-547-GMS (D. Del.). The firm represents Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing in this patent infringement litigation against nearly 100 defendants involving interactive telephone, computer telephony and related services.
• IDT Corporation v. Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P., 04-00208 WJM-RJH (D. N.J.).  The firm represented Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing in this patent infringement litigation concerning prepaid card products and services.
• In the Matter of CERTAIN PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC DEVICES AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME, ITC Investigation No. 337- TA-453. The firm represented Altera in this investigation involving patents concerning programmable logic devices.
• Centillion Data Systems Inc. v. MCI WorldCom Inc., et al., IP98-C-1754 (S.D. Ind).  The firm represented MCI WorldCom in this case involving two billing system software patents.
• ActivCard S.A. v. VASCO Data Security International, Inc., C.A. No. 02-189 (MPT) (D. Del.). The firm represented ActivCard in this patent infringement case involving authentication and encryption technology.
• Harris Corporation v. Atmel Corporation, 98-98-A (E.D. Va.). The firm represented Atmel in this patent infringement action. The eight patents in suit relate to semiconductor circuits and processing technologies.
• Atmel Corporation v. Agere Systems, Inc., C-03-04632 JCS (N.D. Cal.). The firm represented Atmel in this patent infringement case involving digital signal processing chips.
• Atmel Corporation v. ISD, C95-01987 SC (JL) (N.D. Cal). The firm represented Atmel in this patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation action involving the use of semiconductors in voice recording devices.
• Atmel Corporation v. SST, C96-00039 SC (N.D. Cal). The firm represented Atmel in this patent infringement action. The patents relate to circuits and memory cell designs for flash memory and EEPROMs.
• In the Matter of Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory and Flash Microcontroller Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing Same; ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-395. The firm represented Atmel in this patent infringement action involving semiconductor circuitry and processing.
• BioGenex v. BioTek Solutions, C96-20151 EAI (N.D. Cal). The firm represented BioTek Solutions in this patent infringement action involving a method for restoring the antigenicity of formalin-fixed tissue (used in connection with cancer and other tests).
• Atari Games Corporation and Tengen, Inc. v. Nintendo of America Inc. and Nintendo Co., Ltd., C-89-4805 FMS, C-89-0027 FMS, [Consolidated] (N.D. Cal). The firm represented Atari Games in this litigation involving three home video game patents and the copyright protection of computer software. The firm obtained the first published appellate decision holding that a computer program may be copied in order to analyze its functionality. The firm also implemented reverse engineering and "clean room" procedures to develop alternative computer code.
• Performix v. Mercury Interactive Corporation, 95-1150 (E.D. Va). The firm represented Mercury Interactive in this copyright and trade secret litigation concerning automated software testing tools.
• Roland Corporation v. DREAM, et al., CV-96-6455 (C.D. Cal). The firm represented defendants in this copyright infringement action involving musical tones generated by an electronic musical instrument.
• American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plan of California, C93-3700-CAL ENE (N.D. Cal). The firm represented Delta Dental in this case involving a claim of copyright infringement concerning the Code of Dental Procedures and Nomenclature published by the ADA.

Publications

• "Understanding and Surviving ITC Litigation"  ACCA Docket  1.24.2002