Michael G. Lee

I'll research this attorney and the tracked case before drafting.

Let me dig deeper on the attorney and the specific case.

Professional Summary — Michael G. Lee

Specialty / focus. The tracked record contains only one matter, so his technology focus can only be inferred from the Longhorn Automotive campaign rather than from a stated practice description. The patents at issue in that family are automotive/vehicle-oriented — a distributed measurement and control system (U.S. 7,987,002), a compact cryptographic engine supporting RSA and ECC (U.S. 7,634,666), vehicle lighting (U.S. 8,810,803), and related vehicle electronics (U.S. 7,513,238; 8,265,353) — a mix of electrical, computer, and mechanical subject matter. No attorney-specific practice page or technology-area description for a "Michael G. Lee" at Lee & Hayes was located in search; I could not confirm broader areas such as Wi-Fi/standards or pharma, and I did not find a reliable basis to attribute any specific technical specialty beyond this case.

Side preference. The authoritative counts show 0 plaintiff-side and 1 defendant-side appearance, and that appearance is as back-up counsel. That statistic needs a qualification: the tracked matter is captioned Unified Patents v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLC, and Longhorn Automotive Group is a patent-owner entity and NPE (an entity of Alpha Alpha Intellectual Partners LLC) that asserts patents against automakers. In other words, the "defendant" designation reflects procedural posture — Lee & Hayes appears to have represented the patent owner against a validity challenge brought by Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator — rather than a conventional operating-company defense practice. Drawing a side-preference conclusion from a single back-up-counsel entry is not reliable.

Firm context. He is listed at Lee & Hayes, PLLC, an IP-focused firm headquartered in Spokane, Washington, with a substantial Austin, Texas office and several other U.S. locations. The firm's public profile is weighted toward patent prosecution and portfolio work (firm-level registrations associated with Cisco, Amazon, T-Mobile, Zoox, Alibaba, Stryker, and others, though that reflects the firm, not this attorney), alongside IP litigation; the firm has also appeared as patent-owner counsel in PTAB proceedings, for example for Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. I found no verifiable prior-firm history for this particular attorney.

Notable cases, PTAB experience, and sourcing gaps. The only case attributable to him is Unified Patents v. Longhorn Automotive Group LLC, where he served as back-up counsel. Related but not attributable to him: Unified's ex parte reexamination request against Longhorn's U.S. 7,987,002 was granted by the Central Reexamination Unit on April 22, 2025 (Unified was represented by Baker Botts and in-house counsel there), and separate IPRs against Longhorn patents were filed by Koito (IPR2025-00955), Volkswagen (IPR2025-01064) and Nissan (IPR2025-01089). I could not verify any verdict, settlement, or Federal Circuit outcome involving this attorney. On PTAB/IPR experience: his sole tracked appearance is in a patent-office/PTAB-style challenge, so PTAB involvement is indicated but limited in the available record — there is no evidence of a regular IPR/PGR practice. Bar admissions and education were not reliably sourced and are therefore omitted. Note also that searches for "Michael G. Lee" surfaced ambiguous records (including unrelated patent filings in other names), so any identification beyond the single tracked case should be treated with caution.