Michael John Miguel

I'll research this attorney's professional background before drafting the summary.

Let me verify the specific case appearance and check for any other data sources.

Let me pull the firm bio and check the specific docket for that case.

Professional Summary — Michael John Miguel (McKool Smith)

Focus areas. The single tracked patent matter in Mr. Miguel's record is Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. AT&T Inc. (E.D. Tex., No. 2:14-cv-00720), a display-optics case in which Innovative Display Technologies and Delaware Display Group — entities affiliated with the patent-licensing firm Acacia Research — asserted a portfolio of "light emitting panel assemblies" and light-redirecting film patents (U.S. Patents 6,755,547; 7,300,194; 7,384,177; 7,404,660; 7,434,974; 7,914,196; 8,215,816) against AT&T and other wireless carriers over LCD-equipped phones and tablets. Beyond that case, there is no public evidence that Mr. Miguel maintains a patent-focused practice. His firm biography and third-party listings describe a complex commercial trial practice centered on insurance recovery and coverage litigation, environmental legacy-liability coverage, antitrust, and general business disputes; he is listed in Best Lawyers for Insurance Law/Insurance Litigation and in Super Lawyers for Insurance Coverage, Civil Litigation, and Environmental Litigation, with no patent or IP category.

Side preference. The tracked record is defense-side only (0 plaintiff / 1 defendant), representing the operating company AT&T against a non-practicing entity asserting acquired display patents. That posture fits his broader book of business, which is predominantly defense-oriented, though he has also served as trial counsel for plaintiffs in commercial matters — e.g., Enterprise Financial Group v. Santander Consumer (USA), where he was part of the McKool Smith team that won a $5 million breach-of-contract jury verdict in Dallas County in November 2022.

Firm context. He is a principal at McKool Smith, practicing out of the firm's Los Angeles office (with a Houston address also listed). No prior firm history could be verified through public sources. McKool Smith is well known for both contingency-fee plaintiff-side patent work and defense-side patent litigation for corporate clients such as AT&T and American Airlines.

Notable cases and PTAB. His documented trial record is largely outside patents: Enterprise Financial Group v. Santander Consumer ($5M plaintiff verdict, 2022); Neurobrands v. The American Bottling Co. (C.D. Cal., settled); Maxus Trust v. Greenstone Assurance (E.D. Tex., settled eve of trial, 2021); Bedivere Insurance Co. v. Maxus Energy Corp. (Harris Cty., Tex., settled day before trial); and In re Western States Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1566, which produced the Supreme Court decision in Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015). He has tried cases to verdict in five states. Regarding Innovative Display Technologies v. AT&T, I could not independently locate a docket entry or press report confirming his specific role as lead counsel; the tracked-appearance data is the source for that. No IPR, PGR, or other PTAB filings naming him were found — McKool Smith's PTAB filings reviewed list other attorneys (e.g., John B. Campbell, Mike McKool), so there is no verified post-grant practice to report.

Bar and education. J.D., University of Southern California Law School, 1989 (staff editor, USC Journal of Law & Environment); B.A., English Literature, UCLA, 1986. Admitted in California, Texas, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia, plus the U.S. Supreme Court and the First, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits. No USPTO registration number was found.

Disambiguation note. This profile refers to the McKool Smith principal; he should not be confused with Miguel Bombach (Foley & Lardner), a separate patent litigator with an electrical-engineering background, or with other attorneys sharing the surname.