We'll help you find the right solution for your needs
Does this sound like your topic?
Long Standing Full Service Intellectual Property Law Firm Known for its innovative, value driven app
|IL||Active And Authorized To Practice Law||1982||05/16/2017|
|Award name||Grantor||Date granted|
|Super Lawyer||Super Lawyers Magazine||2016|
|Super Lawyer||Super Lawyers||2015|
|Leading Lawyer||Law Bulletin Publishing Company||2015|
|Super Lawyer||Super Lawyers||2014|
|Super Lawyer||Super Lawyers||2013|
|Partner, Litigation Group Leader||Pearne & Gordon, LLP||2014 - Present|
|Partner||Levenveld Pearlstein, LLC||2011 - 2013|
|Partner||Howrey||2001 - 2011|
|Associate and Partner||Gardner Carton & Douglas||1982 - 2001|
|Law Clerk||U.S. District Court, ND Ind.||1981 - 1982|
|Association name||Position name||Duration|
|Patent Litigation Subcommitee of ABA Section of Litigation||Co-chair||2009 - Present|
|Intellectual Property Lawyers Association of Chicago||Member||2007 - 2009|
|ABA Intellectual Property Law Newsletter||Supreme Court Announces New Standard for Review of Claim Construction Rulings||2015|
|Landslide, ABA Intellectual Property Law Section||Post-Uniloc Reasonable Royalty Damages: What to Do Now and How to Present It to the Jury?||2014|
|ABA Intellectual Property Litigation Committee newsletter||SCOTUS Rejects Expanded Concept of Induced Infringement||2014|
|National Law Journal||Patent Litigators are Placed in Role of Translators||2007|
|National Law Journal||Hatch-Waxman Changes||2004|
|Stanford University Law School||Law||J.D.||1981|
|University of Notre Dame||Government and International Affairs||B.A.||1978|
|The Rise of the "Footprint" Approach to Damages: What's New in 2016?||Apportionment in Lost Profits Damages||2016|
|ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law and the ABA Center for Professional Development Webinar||Reasonable Royalty Damages: How to Satisfy the Judge and Persuade the Jury||2014|
|ABA Litigation Section Annual Conference||Patent Trolls: Do They Help or Hurt Innovation and Will the New Legislation Kill Them?||2014|
|Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago||Determining Damages in Patent Cases Since Uniloc 's Prohibition on Using the 25% Rule||2012|
|Practising Law Institute, Patent Litigation Program||Issues and Considerations Associated with Concurrent Reexamination: A Litigator's Perspective||2010|
Posted by anonymous
We are a small software company that was sued by a NPE. We were referred to Michael Padden and he agreed to take our case on fair and reasonable terms. We worked with him, and another attorney from Pearne & Gordon, to identify flaws in the infringement claim. He then communicated these points to the plaintiff attorney in a way that resulted in the case being dismissed.
We were enormously impressed by the elegance with which Michael handled the negotiation: in polite but forceful language he summarized the complex technical aspects of the claim and made a convincing set of arguments for its dismissal.
We will always be grateful for the wisdom, patience and skill that Michael deployed on our behalf.
Posted by anonymous
Mike was extremely effective in the case that arose out of a termination of Tessco as a distributor and was resolved after he removed the case from Maryland state court and got a favorable result at a preliminary injunction hearing in arbitration. Very difficult plaintiff
Richard Young, Intellectual property Attorney
Relationship: Fellow lawyer in community
I endorse this lawyer. I have known and worked with Mike Padden for more than 20 years, primarily in IP litigation matters. Mike is an exceptional litigator and business counselor. He is creative and dogged in his approach to litigation. He is also extraordinarily professional and civil in all of his dealings. When I need to refer a client to another IP litigator, Mike is always at the top of my list. He's smart and strategic and he knows how to win.