Back to previous page

Michael G. Pattillo Jr.

Michael Pattillo is an experienced appellate litigator. He has argued in the Supreme Court of the United States, federal courts of appeals and district courts, and state courts of appeals. Since the beginning of 2019 alone, he has won seven appeals for his clients. Mr. Pattillo’s practice also includes critical motions and issue analysis at the trial level. He has experience in a wide variety of substantive areas, including the Federal Trade Commission Act, 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 primary focus has been on appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in patent cases. 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). Among other things, he has successfully defended patent infringement verdicts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and obtained reversal of unfavorable PTO decisions. He also 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

  • AMG Capital Management v. Federal Trade Commission, 141 S. Ct. 1341 (2021): Successfully argued case concerning whether Section 13(b) of the FTC Act authorizes the Commission to seek monetary remedies; overturned $1.27 billion judgment.

  • Genentech, Inc., v. Amgen, Inc., 796 F. App’x 726 (Fed. Cir. 2020): Successfully defended order denying preliminary injunction in patent suit involving the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
  • Comcast Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 951 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2020): Successfully defended ITC order excluding from importation certain set-top boxes that infringe Rovi Corp.’s patents.
  • Berkeley Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Hub Int’l Ltd., 944 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2019): Succeeded in overturning decision denying Hub’s motion to compel arbitration under §4 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
  • TCL Commc’ns Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 943 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2019): Successfully overturned, on Seventh Amendment grounds, district court’s decision that Ericsson’s rates for patents essential to 2G, 3G, and 4G mobile communications standards were not “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory,” and imposing unfavorable rates going forward.
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC, 792 F. App’x 813 (Fed. Cir. 2019): Succeeded in overturning PTAB decision finding that Wyeth’s patent claims for formulas for stabilizing multi-valent conjugate vaccines were not invalid as obvious.
  • Idenix Pharm. LLC v. Gilead Scis. Inc., 941 F.3d 1149, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2019): Represented Idenix in challenging district court decision holding that Idenix’spatents for methods of treating Hepatitis C were invalid due to lack of enablement.
  • Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019): Succeeded in overturning case-dispositive construction of Continental Circuit’s patent claims on manufacturing multi-layer electronic devices.
  • VirnetX v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 748 F. Appx 332 (Fed. Cir. 2019): Obtained summary affirmance of $440 million damages award against Apple for infringing VirnetX’s patents covering Apple’s FaceTime and VPN-on-Demand products.
  • Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Holdings Ltd., No. 18-2003 (Fed. Cir.) (case argued and pending decision): Representing Ericsson in defending $75 million verdict for infringement of its patented security technology for smartphones. Appeal involves patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, apportionment of damages, and enhanced damages.
  • Amgen v. Sanofi, No. 18-127 (S. Ct.): Represented Amgen in seeking Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) to include distinct “enablement” and “written description” requirements for patent validity.
  • Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 888 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2018): Represented Merck in challenging decision applying the “unclean hands” doctrine to erase Merck’s $200-million patent infringement judgment against Gilead.
  • Mervyn v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 882 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2018): Obtained affirmance of summary judgment in putative class action brought under the Motor Carrier Act’s Truth-in-Leasing regulations.
  • Hasty v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017): Successfully 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.
  • McRO, Inc. v. Namco Bandai Games Am., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016): Succeeded in overturning district court ruling that McRO’s patents for methods for automating 3-D facial animation were not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corp., 670 F. App’x 704 (Fed. Cir. 2016): Represented Rovi in challenging district court ruling that Rovi’s patents relating to streaming-media and interactive program guide technologies were not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 527 F. App’x 902 (Fed. Cir. 2013): Successfully represented Rambus in challenging a PTO decision finding patent on DRAM technology to be invalid as anticipated.
  • Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc): Successfully represented Therasense in landmark en banc Federal Circuit case concerning the “inequitable conduct” doctrine.
  • Represented major technology companies and trade groups as amici curiae in significant patent and technology-related cases:
    • Google, LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 18-956 (S. Ct.) (case pending)
    • Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 2511 (2016)
    • Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)
    • Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013)
    • Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 886 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
    • 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)


News & Appearances


  • 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, 2016-2019


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
  • Florida
  • 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


Jump to Page

By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.