Michael Sadowitz, Associate

(646) 502-5858 | mike@radip.com

Michael Sadowitz is an Associate at Radulescu LLP.  His practice focuses on patent litigation in federal courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the International Trade Commission.  Mike has had key roles in patent matters small and large, including the Apple v. Samsung smartphone wars before district courts and the ITC.  Mike has represented clients in matters dealing with many different technologies, including all aspects of LED lighting, semiconductor processes and devices, and mobile telecommunications and electronics.  Mike’s strong technical background informs his deep involvement in key technical issues during all phases of his cases, including claim construction, infringement and validity, and presentation of highly technical issues to lay juries. 

Education
Michigan Law School

(J.D., 2010, cum laude)

 
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

(B.S., Electrical Engineering 2006, summa cum laude)

 

Tau Beta Pi

 

Completed Masters coursework in Electrical Engineering

Prior Associations
Allen & Overy LLP

Associate, 2013-2014

 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

Associate, 2011-2013

 

Brooks Kushman P.C.

Associate, 2010-2011

Admissions

The State Bar of New York

 

United States Federal Courts:

District of Colorado;

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Notable Representations
Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC v. Toshiba Corp. et al.

Counsel for plaintiff Lambeth Magnetic Structures in a patent infringement action against Toshiba et al. in the Western District of Pennsylvania involving magnetic materials for hard disk drives.

 

IPR 2016-00013 (TDK Corp. v. Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC)

Counsel for Patent Owner Lambeth Magnetic Structures in an Inter Partes Review Petition filed before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board filed by TDK related to U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988. Obtained denial of institution.

 

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., d/b/a WAC Lighting

Counsel for defendant WAC Lighting in a patent infringement action filed by Philips (represented by Finnegan Henderson) in the District of Massachusetts involving 10 patents relating to LED technology including patents originating from Color Kinetics Inc.

 

IPRs 2015-1287, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293 and 1294 (WAC Lighting v. Philips)

Counsel for Petitioner WAC Lighting in seven (7) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board requesting the cancellation of asserted invalid claims in Philips’ U.S. Patent Nos. 6,013,988; 6,147,458; 6,250,774; 6,561,690; 6,586,890; 7,038,399; and 7,352,138.

 

Blackbird Tech LLC v. 1000Bulbs.com and Precision Light & Transformer

Counsel for defendants in Blackbird’s assertion of U.S. Patent No. 7,086,747 against linear LED tubes made by, among others, ETi, Green Creative, PlusRite and ELB Electrical.  Settled on favorable terms for defendants.

 

 

Lexington Luminance v. 1000Bulbs.com

Counsel for defendant 1000Bulbs in a patent infringement action filed by Lexington Luminance in the Northern District of Texas involving a patent directed to LED chip technology being asserted against over 50 different LED bulbs.

 

Super Lighting v. Maxlite

Counsel for defendant Maxlite in a patent infringement action filed by Super Lighting in the Central District of California involving 6 patents relating to linear LED tubes.

 

Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v. Curtis International, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Seoul Semiconductor asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the Southern District of Florida involving light emitting diode technology for use in LED TVs.

 

Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v. Craig Electronics, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Seoul Semiconductor asserting five patents in a patent infringement action pending in the Southern District of Florida involving light emitting diode technology for use in LED TVs.

 

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Finisar Corp. asserting six patents in a patent infringement action against Nistica in the Northern District of California involving optical communication technology.

 

Zond LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp. & Renesas Electronics America Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. & Global Foundries U.S., Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. TSMC and Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. Toshiba Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. SK Hynix Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.  Settled on favorable terms after limited discovery and Zond’s service of detailed infringement contentions.

 

Zond, LLC v. Gillette Corp. and Proctor & Gamble Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting ten patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. Intel Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Mears Technologies Inc. v. Finisar Corp.

Counsel for Defendant Finisar Corp. in patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving optical communication technology.  Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement.  Mears appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

 

Swan Co. Ltd. v. Finisar Corp. & Fujitsu Ltd.

Counsel for defendant Finisar Corp. in patent infringement action filed by Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving optical communication technology.  Obtained favorable settlement after fact discovery and claim construction.

 

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Corp.

Counsel for Samsung in multiple patent infringement actions pertaining to smartphone technology in the Northern District of California and the International Trade Commission.

 

Motorola Mobility v. Apple, Inc.

Counsel for Motorola Mobility in a patent infringement action pertaining to smartphone technology in the Southern District of Florida.

 

TRW Automotive v. Magna Elecs.

Counsel for Magna as complainant and respondent in two International Trade Commission cases relating to vision-based driver assistance systems.

 

France Telecom v. Marvell Semiconductor 

Counsel for Marvell in a patent infringement action brought in the Southern District of New York relating to error correction in mobile communications.

 

Cheetah Omni v. Verizon

Counsel for Cheetah Omni in a patent infringement action relating to optical fiber networks in the Eastern District of Texas.

5 Penn Plaze, 19th Fl, New York, NY 10001  Phone: (646) 502-5950
Radulescu LLP. All rights are reserved  ©2019