Associate
Michael Aragon's practice focuses on patent litigation. Michael also assists with patent prosecution and strategic intellectual property counseling matters.
Michael leverages his litigation experience while representing clients before federal district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
Michael completed a federal clerkship in the Eastern District of Texas, one of the country's busiest patent venues. He draws on his experience with trials, pre-trial conferences, hearings, motion practice, discovery, and appellate proceedings as he advises clients.
During law school, Michael served as a judicial intern in the Eastern District of Texas. He also previously served as a scholar at the Google Legal Summer Institute (LSI).
Before law school, Michael worked as a systems and automation engineer in the semiconductor industry. As an engineer, he helped optimize systems that allow for full automation of the fabrication plant at Samsung Austin Semiconductor and received the President's Award, the company's highest individual accolade.
In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing the Same
Achieved a comprehensive victory for respondent Innoscience, a global leader in gallium nitride (GaN) power devices, in a high-profile patent dispute before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC’s Final Determination confirms that Innoscience avoided all patent claims asserted by Infineon.
337‑TA‑1414, ITC, Judge Moore
BMW of North America, LLC and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Arigna Technology Ltd.
Secured a covenant-not-to-sue and zero-dollar walkaway for BMW Group in a declaratory judgment action, concluding Arigna’s high-profile patent enforcement campaign involving current amplification technology. This outcome follows a decisive ITC victory, the dismissal of parallel District Court litigation, and multiple concurrent patent office challenges pending at the time of resolution.
1:23-cv-01190, D.D.C., Judge Contreras
2:21-cv-00173, E.D. Tex.
IPR2021-01531, PTAB, Judges Baer, Fenick, Iftikhar
23-1931, Fed. Cir.
90/019,261, USPTO
337-TA-1267, ITC, Judge Bhattacharyya
Articles
GDPR, BDSG, & Discovery in U.S. Courts Under Hague Evidence Convention GDPR, BDSG, & Discovery in U.S. Courts Under Hague Evidence Convention
October 25, 2021
Bloomberg LawArticles
A Patent Owner May Be Liable for Defamation if Its Settlement Agreements State Its Belief That a Third-Party Is Infringing Its Trade Dress A Patent Owner May Be Liable for Defamation if Its Settlement Agreements State Its Belief That a Third-Party Is Infringing Its Trade Dress
April 30, 2021
LES InsightsArticles
New Regulations from the USPTO on PTAB Proceedings New Regulations from the USPTO on PTAB Proceedings
April 2021
CIPA JournalArticles
A Settlement Agreement Can Be Evidence of an Appropriate Patent Royalty Rate Even When It Occurs Years After Patent Infringement Began A Settlement Agreement Can Be Evidence of an Appropriate Patent Royalty Rate Even When It Occurs Years After Patent Infringement Began
February 26, 2021
LES InsightsPress Release
Finnegan Secures Decisive ITC Victory for Innoscience in Final Determination Finnegan Secures Decisive ITC Victory for Innoscience in Final Determination
May 11, 2026
Commentary
ITC Bars Import of Innoscience Chips Made Before Redesign ITC Bars Import of Innoscience Chips Made Before Redesign
May 8, 2026
Law360Press Release
Finnegan Secures Major ITC Victory in Initial Determination for Innoscience Finnegan Secures Major ITC Victory in Initial Determination for Innoscience
January 29, 2026
Commentary
ITC Judge Clears Innoscience's Redesigned Semiconductor ITC Judge Clears Innoscience's Redesigned Semiconductor
January 29, 2026
Law360Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.