Michael N. McNamara

I'll research Michael N. McNamara's professional background to build a verified summary.

The initial results surfaced several attorneys with similar names. Let me search more specifically for Michael N. McNamara at McKool Smith and the Parus Holdings case.

Let me dig deeper into the specific Federal Circuit/PTAB case counsel and the McKool Smith attorney roster.

Summary — Michael N. McNamara (McKool Smith)

Specialty / focus. Based on the tracked case list, McNamara's patent work centers on voice-processing / voice-browser technology. His sole tracked appearance is on behalf of Parus Holdings, Inc., which asserted patents covering voice-command systems that access Internet content against Samsung (and, in related litigation, Google, LG, and Apple). The broader McKool Smith–Parus engagement — in which a "McNamara" (signed as Michael J. McNamara, Reg. No. 52,017) appeared on McKool Smith's power-of-attorney filings in the Parus IPRs — involves voice-UI and communications-related patents, consistent with a technology/communications-networks focus. Note on disambiguation: several attorneys share this name; a Michael J. McNamara (same USPTO reg. no.) now practices at Mintz in Boston and has a publicly described patent-litigation practice in telephony, fiber-optic, LCD, software, and semiconductor technology (previously Baker Botts and Goodwin Procter, per Justia/USPTO records). I could not verify a separate McKool Smith bio for a "Michael N. McNamara," so the identity link is reasonable but not fully confirmed.

Side preference. Purely plaintiff / patent-owner side in the tracked data (1 plaintiff appearance, 0 defendant). The Parus representation is NPE/patent-owner work: asserting voice-browser patents against operating companies in district court and defending those same patents as patent owner in IPRs before the PTAB. No defense-side appearances are tracked.

Firm context. McKool Smith, the Dallas-founded trial firm known for plaintiff-side IP verdicts (e.g., i4i v. Microsoft, Versata v. SAP, WiLAN v. Apple), and which reported the top PTAB patent-owner win rate among defense firms in 2022 while representing Parus among others. If the profiled attorney is the same individual as the Michael J. McNamara who signed McKool Smith IPR papers in December 2021, he later moved to Mintz Levin (Boston); his education per public records is Tufts University (B.S., magna cum laude) and George Washington University Law School (J.D.).

Notable cases / outcomes and PTAB experience. Tracked matter: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc. (voice-browser patents). Related verifiable results in the same McKool Smith–Parus campaign: PTAB final written decision upholding claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705 against Google (IPR2022-00279, Aug. 2024), following denials of IPR institution on two related Parus patents; a Federal Circuit affirmance of PTAB invalidation of a Parus patent (U.S. 9,451,084) in the Google/Samsung/LG IPRs; and a July 2026 Federal Circuit decision vacating and remanding a PTAB ruling in Google v. Parus for failure to consider obviousness arguments. This reflects regular patent-owner-side IPR/PGR defense work, though the tracked appearance record itself shows only the one district-court matter.