Michael Bradford

Biography

Michael handles all aspects of intellectual property law, including litigation, trademark prosecution, patent prosecution, and copyright registration. Michael works with his clients to help them grow and protect their intellectual property assets. In his more than twenty years of experience practicing intellectual property law, Michael has prosecuted well over 1,000 federal trademark applications and over 100 patent applications. Michael has conducted hundreds of trademark clearance reviews and regularly works with clients to choose their trademarks and develop brand protection strategies. He also counsels clients regarding third party patents and conducts patent studies to provide them with freedom to operate, non-infringement, and invalidity opinions.

Michael has litigated over 150 cases involving patent, trademark, and copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, rights of publicity, unfair competition, and breach of contract. He has represented his clients in courts throughout Tennessee and around the nation, including Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. He is also one of the few attorneys in Knoxville who has argued multiple cases before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which handles all patent-related appeals from the nation’s district courts.

Michael’s patent cases have involved a wide range of technologies, including vehicle diagnostic monitoring systems, GPS tracking systems, imaging systems, environmental remediation processes, catalysts, vehicle emissions systems, polymers, medical and dental equipment, textiles, construction equipment, wakeboard towers, fitness equipment, sporting goods, archery products, cosmetic applicators, furniture, and ornamental product designs.

In addition to court proceedings, Michael has handled over 100 trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. He has also represented clients in numerous inter partes review (IPR) and reexamination proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Representative highlights include:

• Lead counsel for patent owner in multi-year litigation that obtained multi-million dollar settlement following several favorable court rulings
• Successfully appealed Patent Trial and Appeal Board inter partes review decision of patent invalidity to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and obtained reversal, despite intervention by the United States Patent Office to assist the opposing party on the appeal. The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision provided notice and procedural guidelines for inter partes review proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act. EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
• Developed enforcement program for consumer goods manufacturer to stop widespread copyright infringement and counterfeiting by numerous infringers and recovered several hundred thousand dollars from infringers
• Obtained summary judgment of infringement and patent validity for construction supply manufacturer in patent infringement lawsuit. Allfasteners United States v. Acme Operations Pty, C.D.Cal. Case No. LA CV18-06929
• Successfully appealed Trademark Trial and Appeal Board opposition decision to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision significantly changed the evidentiary landscape in favor of applicants and respondents in opposition and cancellation proceedings. Spireon, Inc. v. Flex Ltd., 71 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
• Favorably resolved a claim of trademark infringement for defendant following multi-week district court trial allowing it to pay no damages
• Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for environmental remediation company in patent litigation based on government contractor immunity, and obtained affirmance of the summary judgment by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision clarified the requirements for government contractor immunity to apply in patent litigation. Sevenson Envtl. Servs. v. Shaw Envtl., Inc., 477 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
• Tried a patent infringement jury trial relating to rethermalization equipment and reached a favorable resolution for the defendant prior to conclusion of the trial
• Obtained summary judgment of copyright non-infringement and copyright ownership for widow of famous moonshiner concerning his memoir. Chennault v. Sutton, 120 F. Supp. 3d 751 (E.D. Tenn. 2014)
• Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for biomedical research equipment manufacturer in patent litigation. Anticancer, Inc. v. Berthold Techs., U.S.A., LLC, 924 F. Supp. 2d 916 (E.D. Tenn. 2013)