Michael Feldman

I'll research this attorney's background, being careful to disambiguate from others sharing the name.

Let me verify his current firm (post-Durie Tangri merger) and case outcomes.

Michael A. Feldman — patent litigation summary

Focus and side preference. Feldman's tracked patent work centers on computer and network security technology — cryptographic coprocessor ("crypto-engine") hardware, access-control and digital-property distribution patents, and network firewall/intrusion-detection patents — as asserted against financial-services cybersecurity and payment systems. Both tracked appearances (0 plaintiff, 2 defendant) are defense-side, representing JPMorgan Chase and its affiliates against Intellectual Ventures II, a prominent patent assertion entity. The record shows an operating-company defense practice; nothing indicates plaintiff-side or NPE/PAE prosecution work. His disclosed court work also includes a non-patent amicus filing for law professors in the Apple iPhone decryption dispute (In re Search of an Apple iPhone, C.D. Cal. 2016, All Writs Act). No source reviewed describes a broader standalone specialty (e.g., life sciences, mechanical), so his technology focus beyond the IV matter is not established.

Firm context. Feldman practiced at Durie Tangri LLP (217 Leidesdorff St., San Francisco), the litigation boutique co-founded in 2009, which is the firm listed on both tracked matters. Durie Tangri combined with Morrison & Foerster in January 2023. I could not confirm whether Feldman moved to MoFo — the public merger materials name Durie, Adam Brausa, Kira Davis and others, but not Feldman — so his current affiliation is unverified.

Notable matters and outcomes. The centerpiece is Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 13-cv-3777 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), where Feldman appears on defense filings (including the joint claim-construction charts) alongside Clement Roberts and Mark Lemley. On April 28, 2015, Judge Hellerstein granted JPMC partial summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 101, holding three asserted patents (the '694, '084 and '409 patents) invalid as patent-ineligible; a fourth (the '574 patent) was withdrawn on consent in September 2015. The defense did not prevail on the last remaining patent, the '666 crypto-engine patent: JPMC's motions for summary judgment of non-infringement were denied in June 2015 and again on July 21, 2016, and its motion to strike IV's infringement contentions was denied. On appeal, the Federal Circuit dismissed JPMC's interlocutory challenge to the denial of a stay, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 781 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Final resolution of the '666 claim was not verified in the sources reviewed.

PTAB/post-grant and credentials. The second tracked matter, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, matches the caption of JPMorgan's AIA covered-business-method petitions at the PTAB against the same IV patents. The Board instituted CBM review of the '409 patent (CBM2014-00157, instituted Jan. 14, 2015) and denied the petition on the '574 patent (CBM2014-00160, Jan. 29, 2015). Feldman's post-grant experience is therefore tied to that CBM work rather than classic IPR/PGR; no IPR or PGR appearances by him were found. He is admitted in California (State Bar No. 295780, admitted c. 2011); his education is not reliably sourced and is omitted.

Caveat: the CBM matters are inferred from matching case captions and the same defense team; I did not directly verify Feldman as counsel of record in the PTAB filings.