{ Spot Image }
600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
F: 202.536.2012

  • Law clerk to the Honorable Stanley F. Birch, Jr., United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • Law clerk to the Honorable Nathan L. Hecht, Supreme Court of Texas
Honors & Awards
  • Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer, Super Lawyers, 2016 and 2017
  • The University of Texas School of Law, J.D.
  • Order of the Coif
  • Texas Law Review
  • University of North Carolina, B.A.
Bar and Court Admissions
  • District of Columbia
  • United States Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 11th, and Federal Circuits
  • United States Supreme Court
Professional Affiliations
  • Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court

Michael G. Pattillo Jr.

Photo of Michael G. Pattillo Jr.

Michael Pattillo is an experienced appellate litigator. He has authored many briefs in the United States Supreme Court and has argued cases in federal and state courts of appeals. His practice also includes critical motions and issue analysis at the trial level. Mr. Pattillo has experience in a wide variety of substantive areas, including intellectual property, the False Claims Act, administrative law, securities fraud, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, campaign finance, federal preemption, and mass torts.

In recent years, Mr. Pattillo’s practice has focused on appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has won cases setting precedent on major issues of patent law, including McRO, Inc. v. Namco Bandai Games America (patent-eligibility of software under 35 U.S.C. § 101) and Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (standard for inequitable conduct). He has obtained reversal of PTO decisions holding patent claims invalid. And he regularly represents technology companies and trade groups as amici curiae in significant patent cases.

Before joining MoloLamken, Mr. Pattillo was an associate with Williams & Connolly LLP and Baker Botts LLP. Before entering private practice, Mr. Pattillo served as a law clerk to Judge Stanley F. Birch of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and to Justice Nathan L. Hecht of the Supreme Court of Texas.

Representative Matters

  • Represented federal prison warden in Supreme Court case addressing whether Bivens extends to actions undertaken by prison officials in connection with confinement of foreign nationals detained in the course of the government’s 9/11 terrorism investigation (Hasty v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017))
  • Represented patent holder in appeal to the Federal Circuit concerning whether methods for automating 3-D facial animation were patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (McRO, Inc. v. Namco Bandai Games Am., et al., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
  • Represented national moving company in putative class action suits brought by owner-operators under the Motor Carrier Act (Mervyn v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., No. 13-C-3587, 2017 WL 1437159 (N.D. Ill. April 20, 2017); Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc., et al., No. 11-C-6549, 2016 WL 1270416 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2016))
  • Represented qui tam relators in cases against major pharmaceutical manufacturer brought under the False Claims Act and the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (California ex rel. Johnson, et al. v. Warner Chilcott PLC, et al., No. 2:14-cv-03249 (C.D. Cal. 2012); United States ex rel. Alexander, et al. v. Warner Chilcott PLC, et al., No. 11-cv-10545 (D. Mass. 2011))
  • Represented medical diagnostics company in landmark en banc Federal Circuit case concerning the inequitable conduct doctrine (Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc))
  • Represented major technology companies and trade groups as amici curiae in significant intellectual property cases (Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 2511 (2016); Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014); Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013); Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., Nos. 17-1118, -1202 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Thales Visionix v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Corp., 646 F.3d 869 (Fed. Cir. 2011))
  • Represented technology development company in appeal to the Federal Circuit of a USPTO decision finding patent on DRAM technology to be invalid (Rambus Inc. v. Rea, No. 2012-1480, 2013 WL 3242241 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2013))
  • Represented qui tam relator in appeal and in seeking Supreme Court review in case involving pleading standards for False Claims Act suits (United States ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharm. N. Am., Inc., 707 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013))
  • Represented criminal defendant in prosecution for violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (United States v. Danielczyk, 791 F. Supp. 2d 513 (E.D. Va. 2011); United States v. Danielczyk, 683 F.3d 611 (4th Cir. 2012))
  • Represented technology development company in appeal to the Federal Circuit of final determination of the U.S. International Trade Commission concerning patent validity and domestic industry (Rambus, Inc. v. ITC, No. 2012-1677 (Fed. Cir. 2012))


  • When “Lesser” Is More: The Case for Reviving the Constitutional Right to a Lesser Included Offense, 77 Tex. L. Rev. 429 (1998)
  • Supreme Court Simplifies Diversity Jurisdiction and Corporate “Citizenship,” Exec. Counsel (Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011)

News & Appearances