Michael Morlock focuses his practice on patent law with a primary focus on the electronics and software industries. His practice includes patent litigation, strategic patent prosecution, and contentious inter and ex parte post grant and reissue work. He provides creative, cost-effective solutions for his clients — including patent portfolio design as well as employing strategic inter partes review (IPR/PGR/CBM) and ex parte reexamination tactics as well as litigation.
Mr. Morlock represents multiple companies that specialize in handheld devices, including network providers, handset manufacturers, and developers of advanced mobile technologies. Mr. Morlock has represented these companies as defendants in patent litigations and has also helped them develop patent portfolios by prosecuting multiple patent applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
During law school, Mr. Morlock worked as a Teaching Assistant for both the Legal Research and Writing and Appellate Advocacy program. He also served as a Notes and Comments Editor for the Florida Law Review. Prior to law school, Mr. Morlock worked as a Research Engineer for the Georgia Tech Research Institute in Atlanta, where he focused his research on electronic warfare and defense avionics systems.
Mr. Morlock was recognized in 2020 and the six years immediately preceding as a North Carolina "Rising Star" for Intellectual Property Law by Super Lawyers magazine.
Represented T-Mobile, Sharp and Motorola Mobility against patent infringement claims. We filed detailed counterclaims demonstrating why the asserted patent is invalid in view of the prior art. The plaintiff dismissed the claims against all defendants. (Judge Folsom). GellyFish Technology of Texas LLC v. Alltel Corp et al., No. 2:11-cv-00216 (E.D. Tex. filed Apr. 13, 2011).
Counsel for Petitioner in an Inter Partes Review filed against a Patent asserted in the District of Vermont. Final Written Decision issued on February 11, 2014 invalidating all asserted claims as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102. Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arnouse Digital Device Corp., Case No. IPR 2013-00010 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2013).
Successfully obtained the institution of an IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704, and a final holding of invalidity of all challenged claims was issued on Oct. 9, 2014. The ‘704 patent relates to Internet video calls and had survived previous ex parte reexamination and multiple litigations, including against Skype. Sipnet EU S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., Case No. IPR 2013-00246 (PTAB Apr. 11, 2013).
Represented Patent Owner in Inter Partes Review. Dispute favorably settled and dismissed prior to deadline to file a Preliminary Response. Sumitomo Chemical Company, Ltd. v. Celgard, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-00122 (W.D.N.C., filed Feb. 22, 2013).
Defending United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed Sept. 15, 2011).
Defending United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al., No. 11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed Sept. 15, 2011).
Defending United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline’s use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application “United Airlines Mobile app.” of infringing one or more claims of the ‘816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 11-694 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 21, 2011).
Representing Celgard LLC in an inter partes review related to separators for high energy rechargeable lithium batteries.
Defending AT&T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a “telecommunications device,” that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a “remote computerized database” using a “communications exchange,” and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC v. Apple, Inc., et al., No. 11-647 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 2, 2011).
Lead counsel for Wachovia Bank, Branch Banking & Trust Company, M&T Bank and Comerica Bank against DataTreasury in patent infringement suits in the Eastern District of Texas. The patents at issue involved various technologies, including telecommunications, electronic payment and clearing systems, software, business methods, and electrical and mechanical devices. The plaintiff in these cases sued more than 40 defendants, including many leading banks and financial institutions. Cases settled in 2009 and 2010 shortly before trial. DataTreasury Corp. v. Wachovia Corp., et al., No. 05-0293 (E.D. Tex. filed June 28, 2005) and DataTreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., No. 06-0072 (E.D. Tex. filed Feb. 24, 2006). (Judge Folsom).
Insights View All
Georgia Institute of TechnologyB.S. (2005) Electrical Engineering, with honors
University of Florida College of LawJ.D. (2008) with honors
North Carolina (2008)
Eastern District of Texas (2012)
Federal Circuit (2012)
North Carolina Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section Newsletter, Co-Editor
Winston-Salem Youth Chorus, Board of Directors, Member
One West Fifth Street Homeowners’ Association, Board Member and Treasurer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.