Michelle E. Armond
949.932.0778
michelle.armond@armondwilson.com

Michelle Armond represents clients in a broad range of intellectual property disputes.  Formerly partner and practice group leader at the national intellectual property law firm Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, she has prevailed as lead counsel in inter partes review, intellectual property litigation in federal court, and appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  She began her law practice at Irell & Manella LLP.

Michelle is a registered patent attorney and Caltech-trained electrical engineer who handles disputes involving electronics, software, mechanical, electro-mechanical, medical devices, consumer and household goods.

She is a media commentator, frequently invited speaker, and thought leader in intellectual property law. She serves 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.

Consistently recognized as outstanding in her field, Benchmark Litigation named her to its “40 and Under Hotlist” recognizing top U.S. litigators (2018-2019). Michelle is internationally ranked as a top patent professional in the IAM 1000 for her track record in “high-technology” IPRs (2019). Thomson Reuters has ranked her as a “Rising Star” in intellectual property litigation (2009-2018) and a “Southern California’s Top Women Attorneys” (2012-2015).

Clerkship

Judicial law clerk to the Honorable Richard Linn, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington, D.C. (2003-2005)

Education

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

Representative Cases

U.S. Patent Office Litigation

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.

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.

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.

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.

Media

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).

Speeches and Publications

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).

Awards

IAM 1000 Top Patent Professional (2019)

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)

Professional Affiliations

PTAB Bar Association, Federal Circuit appellate committee
Federal Circuit Bar Association
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)

Admissions

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 District of Colorado
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Patent Office
State of California
State of Illinois

Michelle E. Armond
949.932.0778
michelle.armond@armondwilson.com

Michelle Armond represents clients in a broad range of intellectual property disputes.  Formerly partner and practice group leader at the national intellectual property law firm Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, she has prevailed as lead counsel in inter partes review, intellectual property litigation in federal court, and appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  She began her law practice at Irell & Manella LLP.

Michelle is a registered patent attorney and Caltech-trained electrical engineer who handles disputes involving electronics, software, mechanical, electro-mechanical, medical devices, consumer and household goods.

She is a media commentator, frequently invited speaker, and thought leader in intellectual property law. She serves 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.

Consistently recognized as outstanding in her field, Benchmark Litigation named her to its “40 and Under Hotlist” recognizing top U.S. litigators (2018-2019). Michelle is internationally ranked as a top patent professional in the IAM 1000 for her track record in “high-technology” IPRs (2019). Thomson Reuters has ranked her as a “Rising Star” in intellectual property litigation (2009-2018) and a “Southern California’s Top Women Attorneys” (2012-2015).

Clerkship

Judicial law clerk to the Honorable Richard Linn, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington, D.C. (2003-2005)

Education

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

Representative Cases

U.S. Patent Office Litigation

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.

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.

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.

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.

Media

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).

Speeches and Publications

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).

Awards

IAM 1000 Top Patent Professional (2019)

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)

Professional Affiliations

PTAB Bar Association, Federal Circuit appellate committee
Federal Circuit Bar Association
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)

Admissions

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 District of Colorado
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Patent Office
State of California
State of Illinois