“Michelle Armond is an exceptionally skilled practitioner with an outstanding personality that immediately sets you at ease. She takes strong ownership of client issues and makes you feel like your problems are hers, before proceeding to solve them elegantly, efficiently and effectively.”
– IAM 1000
Michelle Armond is an intellectual property litigator described as “brilliant” and “a post-grant star” by IAM 1000. The Daily Journal named her a Top Intellectual Property Lawyer (2022) and Managing IP recognized her as an “IP Star” (2020-22).
Michelle represents clients in a broad range of high-stakes intellectual property disputes involving patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. Her work encompasses inter partes review at the U.S. Patent Office, litigation in federal court, and appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court.
Michelle blends her training in electrical engineering at Caltech and compelling narratives to devise winning strategies. A charismatic courtroom presence and mastery of the nuances of the dispute make her a formidable advocate. Registered as a patent attorney with the U.S. Patent Office, Michelle fluently handles cases involving a variety of technologies, including electronics, software, mechanical, electro-mechanical, medical devices, and consumer goods.
Additionally, Michelle is a media commentator and invited speaker. She serves with leading advocates and judges on the Sedona Conference, advising the industry on best practices in patent litigation. She previously was on the faculty for the Patent Resources Group, teaching a course covering intellectual property litigation, inter partes review, and advanced Federal Circuit appellate law to practicing attorneys.
Before co-founding Armond Wilson, Michelle was a partner and practice group leader at the national intellectual property law firm Knobbe Martens. She began her law practice at Irell & Manella.
Michelle has also been recognized as a “Super Lawyer” by Thomson Reuters (2020-22), a top patent professional in the IAM 1000 (2019-22), on the “40 and Under Hotlist” by Benchmark Litigation (2018), and a “Rising Star” in intellectual property litigation by Thomson Reuters (2009-18).
Judicial law clerk to the Honorable Richard Linn, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington, D.C. (2003-2005)
J.D., University of California, Berkeley School of Law
articles editor, California Law Review
articles editor, Berkeley Technology Law Journal
B.S. with honors, electrical engineering, California Institute of Technology
Top Intellectual Property Lawyer, Daily Journal (2022)
Leaders in Tech Law, California Legal Awards (2022)
Top 250 Women in Litigation, Benchmark Litigation (2022)
IP Star, Managing Intellectual Property (2020-2022)
Leading Litigators in America, LawDragon (2022)
Super Lawyer in intellectual property litigation, Thomson Reuters Super Lawyers (2020-2022)
IAM 1000 Top Patent Professional (2019-2022)
Under 40 Hot List for intellectual property and appellate law, Benchmark Litigation (2018-2019)
Southern California “Rising Star” in intellectual property litigation, Thomson Reuters Super Lawyers (2009-2018)
Top Women Attorneys in Southern California, Thomson Reuters Super Lawyers (2012-2015)
U.S. Patent Office Litigation
Group III Int’l v. Targus Int’l LLC, IPR2021-00371 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained a rare decision after full trial confirming validity of all 40 challenged claims in Targus’ groundbreaking patent on a checkpoint friendly bag design.
Rapid Completions v. Weatherford Int’l, Nos. 18-1859, 18-1860, 18-1861 (Fed. Cir.): successfully defended Board decisions cancelling all asserted claims in a portfolio of three asserted patents relating to downhole oil field drilling equipment resulting in three Rule 36 judgments on appeal.
Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Assa Abloy AB, IPR2015-01562 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.), No. 2017-1817 (Fed. Cir.): successfully represented petitioner in obtaining a final written decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board after a full trial canceling 16 patent claims relating to electronic locks asserted by a competitor in litigation; she also won summary affirmance of the Board’s decision on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
Rapid Completions v. Weatherford Int’l, IPR2017-01232, IPR2017-01236 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.), Nos. 19-1317, 19-1318 (Fed. Cir.): obtained IPR judgements cancelling all asserted claims in two patents asserted in litigation relating to oil field equipment and successfully defended them on appeal.
Kinetic Technologies v. Skyworks Solutions, IPR2014-00529, IPR2014-00530, IPR2014-00690 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully defended patent owner by protecting all claims in all patents asserted in litigation relating to integrated circuits by defeating three separate IPR petitions, including obtaining a rare judgment upholding the patentability of all claims in instituted IPR proceedings after a full trial.
Advanced Micro Devices v. Monterey Research, IPR2020-01124 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): defended AMD and prevailed at trial, obtaining final decision canceling all 19 patent claims relating to memory technology asserted in pending litigation.
Google v. VideoShare, Nos. CBM2020-00027, IPR2020-01631 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained denials of institution defeating IPR and CBM challenges to a patent covering video streaming technology asserted in co-pending litigation.
Weatherford U.S. v. Enventure Global Technology, IPR2020-01580, IPR2020-01648, IPR2020-01684, IPR2020-01700, IPR2021-00107 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained final decisions after a full trial canceling all challenged claims in a portfolio of five drilling tool patents asserted against its client Weatherford.
STMicroelectronics v. Purdue University, IPR2022-00252 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Board): successfully defended client Purdue University in defeating institution of IPR challenge to groundbreaking Purdue patent on silicon carbide MOSFET devices.
Sony Interactive Entertainment v. Intellectual Pixels, IPR2020-01248, IPR2021-00237 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully defended patent owner and obtained rare IPR judgments after full trial confirming claims in two patents on video game graphics technology asserted in related litigation.
LG Electronics v. Wi-LAN Inc., IPR2018-00673 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): obtained IPR judgment confirming patentability of all disputed claims in wireless network patent asserted in co-pending litigation after a full trial.
Instradent USA, Inc. v. Nobel Biocare Services, IPR2015-01784 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully defended patent owner of a pioneering medical device patent for dental implants by defeating institution of an IPR petition brought by a competitor that was filed after the patent had been found infringed in a co-pending ITC action.
Commvault Systems, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC, IPR2017-01710, CBM2017-00061 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): represented petitioner in filing IPR and CBM petitions challenging patentability of patent asserted in litigation. In response, patent owner voluntarily canceled 23 of its patent claims and IPR proceedings were instituted on all remaining claims.
Game Show Network v. Bally Gaming, CBM2015-00155 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): represented petitioner in obtaining institution of CBM petition on all challenged claims of gaming patent where others had failed; case settled thereafter.
Broadnet Teleservices v. Shoutpoint and Victory Solutions, CBM2015-00176, CBM2015-00177 (D. Colo. & Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd.): successfully represented defendant in long-running patent case relating to teleconferencing technology, case settled soon after defendant/petitioner filed two CBM petitions challenging the asserted patents in the Patent Office.
Federal Court Litigation
Masimo Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America et al., No. 09-cv-0080 (D. Del.): represented medical-device maker Masimo resulting in a complete victory in obtaining a jury verdict of over $466 million in damages against Philips for infringing Masimo’s patents. This was the largest IP verdict in 2014. The jury also rejected Philips’s infringement claims seeking $169 million.
TiVo v. EchoStar Corp., No. 04-cv-0001 (E.D. Tex.): in one of the first patent cases to go to trial in the Eastern District of Texas, successfully obtained over $74 million jury verdict for TiVo on patent for DVR technology. One of the largest patent verdicts in 2006.
Nobel Biocare v. Materialise Dental, No. 07-cv-0898 (C.D. Cal.): successfully represented defendant in obtaining early summary judgment of non-infringement in patent case involving dental implant software.
Moxchange LLC v. Spectrum Brands, No. 21-cv-1496 (D. Del.): successfully represented defendant in obtaining an early dismissal with prejudice after filing motion to dismiss complaint asserting infringement of wireless networking patent.
PopSockets LLC v. GiftekTM LLC et al., No. 17-cv-01825 (C.D. Cal): represented popular PopSockets® mobile phone accessory in patent, trademark, and copyright dispute. Successfully brought motion to dismiss counterclaims, and case settled confidentially shortly after the motion was granted.
Treasure Garden v. Lancer and Loader et al., No. 13-cv-0123 (C.D. Cal.): successfully represented plaintiff patent owner in obtaining permanent injunction against national retailer and supplier.
Hygia Health Services v. Masimo Corp., No. 09-cv-0885 (N.D. Ala.): represented Masimo in declaratory judgment case involving patent, trademark, and unfair competition disputes relating to reprocessing of Masimo’s original medical devices. Obtained permanent injunction and favorable settlement.
Qaxaz LLC v. Alpine Electronics et al., No. 11-cv-0492 (D. Del.): represented Alpine Electronics, the industry-leading manufacturer of high-performance mobile audio and navigation systems, in patent litigation involving GPS technology; case settled favorably before trial.
Affinity Labs of Texas v. Alpine Electronics et al., No. 08-cv-171 (E.D. Tex.): successfully represented Alpine Electronics in patent case involving automobile GPS navigation units; case settled favorably before trial.
Women Leaders in Tech Law: Michelle Armond, The Recorder (Oct. 2022)
Vidal Flexes First Sanctions Power in OpenSky “Abuse” Case, Bloomberg (Oct. 2022)
Warhol Case Hits High Court as Patent Fights Wait on Sideline, Bloomberg (Sept. 2022)
Exception to the Rule?, Nat’l Law Review (Sept. 2022)
New Patent Eligibility Bill Takes Aim at High Court Inaction, Bloomberg Law (Aug. 2022)
Generic Drugmakers Score Big in Rare Federal Circuit Reversal, Bloomberg Law (June 2022)
In Google Decision, Federal Circuit Widens Patent Challenge Lens, Bloomberg Law (May 2022)
Vidal Expected to Tackle Patent Board PR, Bloomberg Law (Apr. 2022)
Fed. Circ. Clamps Down on Post-IPR Invalidity Arguments, Law360 (Feb. 2022)
Fed. Circ. Raises the Bar for “Admitted” Prior Art in IPRs, Law360 (Feb. 2022)
PTAB Axes 19 Claims Of Patent Caught In Semiconductor Row, Law360 (Jan. 2022)
Patent Office ‘in Neutral’ as It Awaits Biden’s Pick to Lead It, Bloomberg Law (Sept. 2021)
Finnegan’s 80% diverse summer associate class part of IP practice drive, Daily Journal (June 2021)
Sense of Adventure: Armond Wilson’s founding partners gambled on themselves and the bet paid off, Daily Journal (April 2021).
How to Create A Bulletproof Patent, Forbes (Jan. 2021)
Patent Office Multiple Attack Pushback Leads to Tactical Revamp, Bloomberg Law (Dec. 2020)
Patent Office Considers New Rules for Denying Patent Reviews, Bloomberg Law (Oct. 2020)
Patent Law is Just the Beginning for High Court in Arthrex, Law360 (Oct. 2020)
Precedent Panel Says PTAB Can Raise Grounds Against Amendments, Bloomberg Law (July 2020)
Adidas Can Appeal PTAB Loss to Nike, Still Comes Up Short, Bloomberg Law (June 2020)
Fed. Cir. Lets PTAB Ax Video Game Messaging Patent Claims, Law360 (June 2020)
Riot Games’ Networking Patent Win Affirmed by Federal Circuit, Bloomberg Law (June 2020)
Patent Office Panel Gets Appeals Clout After High Court Ruling, Bloomberg Law (May 2020)
PTAB Order on Patent Review Factors Declared Precedential, Bloomberg Law (May 2020)
Targus Sues Victorinox Over Airport-Friendly Laptop Bag Patent, Bloomberg Law (Apr. 2020)
PTAB’s Precedent Tightens Prior Art Guidelines in Validity Trials, Bloomberg Law (Mar. 2020)
Patent Office to Hold Remote Meetings ‘Until Further Notice,’ Bloomberg Law (Mar. 2020)
Itron’s Invalidation of Utility Monitoring Patents Affirmed, Bloomberg Law (Feb. 2020)
Fed. Circ. OKs Meter Patent Ax After Late Time-Bar Challenge, Law360 (Feb. 2020)
GE’s Supreme Court Appeal Plan Tests Patent Challenge Tactics, Bloomberg Law (Jan. 2020)
Patent Eligibility Clarity Tops Attorneys’ New Year’s Wish List, Bloomberg Law (Dec. 2019)
Women Attorneys Few and Far Between at Patent Board Proceedings, Bloomberg Law (Dec. 2019)
Fed. Cir. Asked to Reverse Riot Games’ PTAB Wins, Law360 (Sept. 2019)
Facebook Wins Bid to Kill Part of Online Chat Room Patent, Bloomberg Law (Sept. 2019)
Patent Appeal Decisions Carve Out Lessons on Claim Language, Bloomberg Law (Aug. 2019)
The Algorithm Will Hire Your Patent Lawyer Now, Bloomberg Law (Aug. 2019)
Fed. Cir.’s High Standing Bar May Deter Some PTAB Reviews, Law360 (July 2019)
Who Can Appeal PTAB Decisions? Here’s What We Know, Law360 (July 2019)
The Top Patent Cases Of 2019: Midyear Report, Law360 (Jun. 2019)
Supreme Court Keeps a Tight Lid on PTAB Appeals, National Law Journal (Jun. 2019)
Decision Clarified Rules to Win Reissued Patents With New Claims, Bloomberg Law (Jun. 2019)
Former Federal Circuit Clerks Launch IPR-Focused Firm, The Recorder/Law.com (May 2019)
Ex-Knobbe Martens, Heim Payne Partners Launch IP Boutique, Law360 (May 2019)
Knobbe Martens Partner Opens Boutique IP Firm, Daily Journal (May 2019)
Former Knobbe Martens Lawyer Forms New IP Boutique Armond Wilson, Bloomberg Law (May 2019)
Skilled in the Art: What Does Qualcomm’s Post-Koh Future Look Like? + Ex-Federal Circuit Clerks Say Small Is Beautiful at PTAB, Law.com (May 2019)
High Court Won’t Hear Fight Over Dietary Supplement Patents, Bloomberg Law (May 2019)
Pendulum Swings Toward Patent Owners in Agency Challenges, Bloomberg Law (Apr. 2019)
Skilled in the Art: Keeping It Real at the Ninth Circuit + Two Knobbe Partners Find New Homes, Law.com (Apr. 2019)
Du Pont Secures Win in Patent Dispute Over Aircraft Blanket, Bloomberg Law (Apr. 2019)
Hulu Patent Bid Opens Doors for New Prior Art Precedent, Bloomberg Law (Apr. 2019)
Generic Drug Labels Don’t Induce Infringement, Appeals Court Says (part 2), Bloomberg Law (Apr. 2019)
Generic Drug Labels Didn’t Induce Infringement, Appeals Court Says (part 1), Bloomberg Law (Mar. 2019)
A Look Back At The PTAB’s Busy Two Weeks of Precedents, Law360 (Mar. 2019)
Despite Drop In AIA Reviews, PTAB Hasn’t Lost Its Luster, Law360 (Feb. 2019)
What to Expect After Year Of Change At The PTAB, Law360 (Jan. 2019)
PTAB Taking Note Of Parallel Litigation In Review Decisions, Law360 (Oct. 2018)
What PTAB Attorneys Need To Know About Real Parties-In-Interest, Law360 (Jun. 2018)
Speaking Engagements and Publications
New Director Reviews: The Latest IPR Guidance From the Patent Office, The Recorder (Oct. 2022)
Co-Author, The Ones to Watch: Patent Cases This Supreme Court Term, Daily Journal (Oct. 2022)
Panelist, The PTAB Turns 10: Looking Forward to the Next Decade, LAIPLA (June 2022)
Co-Author, Patent Litigation Reset: Patent Office Issues New Guidance on Controversial IPR Discretionary Denials, Daily Journal (June 2022)
Panelist, From Bench to Bar: Strategies for Appellate Review, PTAB Bar Association (Mar. 2022)
Panelist, The PTAB Playing Field – Are IPR Proceedings Meeting Their Promise, or Should They Be Altered?, 2022 Leahy Institute of Advanced Patent Studies (Mar. 2022)
Panelist, Women in Intellectual Property 2nd Anniversary Celebration, WIN-DC (Mar. 2022)
Co-Author, What the Latest Case Data Reveals About Stays Pending IPR, Law360 (Mar. 2022)
Panelist, A Peek Behind the Curtain: The Government’s Role in Appeals from the PTAB, PTAB Bar Association (Dec. 2021)
Speaker, Patent Litigation Annual Meeting, Sedona Conference (Nov. 2021)
Speaker, From Electrical Engineering Major to Law Firm Founder, Caltech (Feb. 2021)
Speaker, Patent Law 101 for Startups, MIT Global IAP Day (Jan. 2021)
Panelist, The Evolving Relationship Between Federal Courts and Administrative Agencies, The Sedona Conference (Nov. 2020)
Panelist, What the Patent Trial & Appeal Board Is and Why Inventors Should Care, America’s Inventors Group (Oct. 2020)
Co-Author, Filing Optional Reply Briefs Significantly Improves IPR Results, Law360 (May 2020)
Speaker, Leadership In The Profession: Leading A Boutique Firm in Uncertain Times, Federal Circuit Bar Association (Apr. 2020)
Co-Author, What Happens at The Board Does Not Stay at The Board: How Patent Owners Can Leverage IPR Proceedings in Litigation, IP Watchdog (Mar. 2020)
Co-Author, How Increased Stays Pending IPR May Affect Venue Choice, Law360 (Nov. 2019)
Speaker, Patent Resources Group Advanced Courses: Federal Circuit Law, Scottsdale, AZ (Oct. 2019)
Panelist, ABA/AIPLA/IPO/PTAB Bar Association’s Spring Luncheon on Trending Topics at the PTAB, San Francisco, CA (May 2019)
Speaker, Patent Resources Group Advanced Courses: Federal Circuit Law, Sarasota, FL (Apr. 2019)
Panelist, Chevron Deference in IPR proceedings, Leahy Institute of Advanced Patent Studies, Naples, FL (Feb. 2019)
Speaker, Patent Resources Group Advanced Courses: Federal Circuit Law, Lake Tahoe, NV (Oct. 2018)
Co-Author, The Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, and the Patent Office Walk Out of an Appellate Review Bar: Changing Standards For Appellate Review of IPR Institution Decisions, IP Watchdog (Jun. 2018)
Co-Author, Federal Circuit Patent Law, Patent Resources Group (2013-2019)
Speaker, Patent Resources Group Advanced Courses: Federal Circuit Law, New Orleans, LA (Apr. 2018)
Panelist, Has the Supreme Court’s decision in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health adequately addressed the award of attorney fees in exceptional cases? Leahy Institute of Advanced Patent Studies, Naples, FL (Feb. 2018)
Panelist, Developments at the PTAB, Georgetown Law-Berkeley Law Ninth Annual Conference on Patent Law and Policy, Washington, DC (Nov. 2017)
Speaker, Patent Resources Group Advanced Courses: Federal Circuit Law, Indian Wells, CA (Oct. 2017)
Speaker, What Should I Do With an IPR?, CenterForce IP Strategy Summit, Costa Mesa, CA (Feb. 2017)
Speaker, Patent Resources Group Advanced Courses: Federal Circuit Law, Tampa, FL (Apr. 2016)
Speaker, Patent Resources Group Advanced Courses: Federal Circuit Law, Santa Ana Pueblo, NM (Oct. 2015)
Speaker, Patent Resources Group Advanced Courses: Federal Circuit Law, Orlando, FL (Apr. 2015)
Speaker, Recent Trends in Damages and Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases – Overview of the Apple v. Samsung Litigation, Tokyo Conference Centre Shinagawa, Tokyo (Apr. 2013)
Panelist, I Didn’t Do It: Exploring the Landscape of Divided Infringement in Patent Enforcement, UC Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, CA (Feb. 2012)
Speaker, Special Session for the Presentation of the Portrait of Circuit Judge Richard Linn, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington, D.C., 652 F.3d i (June 10, 2011)
Panelist, Perspectives on KSR, MedImmune, Seagate, and McKesson, UC Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, CA (Feb. 2009)
Panelist, MedImmune and SanDisk: Seeking a License Without Getting a Lawsuit, Fourth Annual Federal Circuit Roundtable Discussion, Chicago-Kent School of Law, Chicago (Sept. 2007)
Author, Introducing the Defense of Independent Invention to Motions for Preliminary Injunctions in Patent Infringement Lawsuits, 91 Cal. L. Rev. 117 (2003)
Author, State Internet Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 379 (2002)
PTAB Bar Association, Federal Circuit appellate committee
Federal Circuit Bar Association
Sedona Conference, Patent Litigation Best Practices Working Group (2019-present)
Howard T. Markey American Inn of Court (2014-2019)
National Association of Women Business Owners, Corporate Sponsor (2008-2019)
Caltech Alumni Association, Board of Directors (2011-2016)
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Patent Office
State of California
State of Illinois