Associate
Michael McLaughlin focuses on patent litigation, patent prosecution, and client counseling. His technical experience encompasses a wide variety of subject matter in the mechanical and electrical spaces including, automotive systems and control methods; fuel cell technologies; printing and medical devices; and warehouse and shipping management systems.
Michael has experience with complex patent cases across various U.S. district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), as well as post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). His litigation practice includes interfacing directly with technical experts to prepare technical reports; formulating infringement, validity, and claim construction positions; managing discovery; and drafting motions at various phases of patent litigation, from initial pleadings through trial phase motions. His patent prosecution and counseling experience includes drafting and prosecuting utility applications, as well as client counseling, due diligence, and freedom to operate matters.
Before joining Finnegan, Michael worked at a global law firm. He focused primarily on preparing and prosecuting U.S. and international utility and design patent applications, conducting and analyzing patentability and freedom to operate searches, and counseling clients on U.S. and international prosecution strategy.
While in law school, Michael completed a patent externship with the USPTO, gaining experience examining patent applications relating to semiconductors, electrical systems, and optical devices. He also practiced as a student attorney at the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic and worked as a research fellow for the Program on Information Justice & Intellectual Property (PIJIP), conducting legal research concerning World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and access to education laws.
As an undergraduate, Michael studied machine design, renewable alternative energy, material science, heat and mass transfer, and dynamics. He also worked with the REN Research Group at Temple University College of Engineering to synthesize magnetic nanoparticles to be used in an energy storage cell for recharging small devices and optimized the dimensional parameters of the energy storage cell.
Michael's pro bono experience includes representing clients in asylum matters and landlord-tenant matters with the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Center.
1:20-cv-00510, D. Del., Judge Wolson
1:23-cv-00005, D. Del., Judge Wolson
IPR2023-00333, -00334, PTAB
22-2062 , Fed. Cir.
IPR2021-00417, -00418, -00419, PTAB, Judges Galligan, Repko, White
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
NorthStar Systems LLC v. BMW et al.
2:22-cv-00486, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
6:23-cv-00456, W.D. Tex., Judge Albright
IPR2023-00890, -00934, -01017,-01049, -01190, -01191, PTAB, Judges Droesch, Flax, Petravick, Wood
337-TA-1267, ITC, Judge Bhattacharyya
Omega Patents LLC v. BMW of North America LLC
22-2012, Fed. Cir., Judges Hughes, Reyna, Stark
IPR2021-00181, PTAB, Judges Deshpande, Hagy, Wieker
1:20-cv-01907, N.D. Ga., Judge Grimberg
1:21-cv-00030, D. Del., Judge Bryson
Articles
BMW v. Arigna: Lessons from a Coordinated Litigation and PTAB Strategy BMW v. Arigna: Lessons from a Coordinated Litigation and PTAB Strategy
September 24, 2024
World Intellectual Property ReviewArticles
Relentless Pursuit of Victory: BMW Group Prevails in Arigna Patent Litigation Saga Relentless Pursuit of Victory: BMW Group Prevails in Arigna Patent Litigation Saga
September 24, 2024
The Patent LawyerArticles
Key Takeaways from BMW’s Victory Against NorthStar Key Takeaways from BMW’s Victory Against NorthStar
April 30, 2024
Press Release
Pvtech Secures Stay of New Jersey District Court Litigation Following USPTO Institution of All 10 Ex Parte Reexamination Requests Against Patents Asserted by Jiaxing Super Lighting Pvtech Secures Stay of New Jersey District Court Litigation Following USPTO Institution of All 10 Ex Parte Reexamination Requests Against Patents Asserted by Jiaxing Super Lighting
April 28, 2026
Press Release
Pvtech Achieves Perfect Record at USPTO: Institution of All 10 of 10 Ex Parte Reexamination Petitions Against Patents Asserted by Jiaxing Super Lighting Pvtech Achieves Perfect Record at USPTO: Institution of All 10 of 10 Ex Parte Reexamination Petitions Against Patents Asserted by Jiaxing Super Lighting
April 24, 2026
Commentary
CBP Clears Redesigned Innoscience Chips After ITC Case CBP Clears Redesigned Innoscience Chips After ITC Case
March 12, 2026
Law360Press Release
Finnegan Achieves Massive CBP Victory for Innoscience, Capping a Series of Decisive Wins Against EPC Finnegan Achieves Massive CBP Victory for Innoscience, Capping a Series of Decisive Wins Against EPC
February 24, 2026
Press Release
BMW Group Secures Strategic USPTO Ruling, Allowing Ex Parte Reexamination to Continue After Successful Opposition to Arigna’s Petition that the Director Terminate the Proceeding on Estoppel Grounds BMW Group Secures Strategic USPTO Ruling, Allowing Ex Parte Reexamination to Continue After Successful Opposition to Arigna’s Petition that the Director Terminate the Proceeding on Estoppel Grounds
April 4, 2025
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.