Mike Doman

I'll research this attorney's background before drafting.

Mike Doman — listed in some directories as Michael R. Doman, Jr. — is Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's Washington, DC office. His practice is concentrated in intellectual property litigation, with a stated emphasis on Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission; his firm biography says he has appeared in more than 40 Section 337 investigations for complainants, respondents, and third parties. The technology mix follows the ITC docket: semiconductors and advanced-node fabrication (TSMC), OLED display modules (Samsung Display v. BOE), cameras and action-cam systems (GoPro v. Insta360), lidar (Hesai), and compact construction equipment (Bobcat v. Caterpillar). A 2021 press bio, from his prior firm, describes a broader range including electronic devices, LEDs, automotive, cosmetic products, roofing materials, fitness equipment, and fashion products.

Side preference. His practice is genuinely two-sided: he is described as having represented complainants, respondents, and third parties, and firm bios list both complaint-side clients (Samsung Display, GoPro, Bobcat, Qualcomm) and defense-side clients (TSMC, Hesai). The structured appearance data here, however, contains a single tracked matter, and it is defendant-side: he is identified as lead counsel for defendant/respondent TSMC. So the verified record in this dataset is a defense posture against an NPE-style assertion, while his longer ITC history is mixed.

Firm context and notable matters. He is currently at Quinn Emanuel; before that he spent roughly a decade at Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg LLP, a Washington, DC boutique focused on Section 337 work, where directory listings show him at associate and later partner level. The single tracked case, Marlin Semiconductor et al. v. TSMC et al., corresponds to ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1443 (Certain Foreign-Fabricated Semiconductor Devices), in which Longitude Licensing and Marlin Semiconductor — Dublin entities under IPValue Management/Vector Capital, asserting patents acquired from UMC — alleged that chips made on TSMC's most advanced nodes infringe their patents and sought an exclusion order. The investigation attracted unusual political attention, with competing congressional letters on the ITC's public-interest analysis. It did not reach a merits ruling: on June 24, 2026, before the ALJ's initial determination, the parties jointly moved to terminate the investigation, and it was terminated by settlement on undisclosed terms, with no exclusion order issued. Parallel PTAB proceedings (TSMC v. Marlin Semiconductor) challenging the asserted Marlin patents were handled by other counsel — Sterne Kessler for TSMC and Mintz for Marlin — so they do not evidence his own PTAB practice.

PTAB / IPR experience. No IPR or PGR appearances for him surfaced in searches; his documented practice is ITC- and district-court-focused rather than PTAB-focused, and this should not be overstated.

Bar / education. Admitted in the District of Columbia (2016) and Pennsylvania (2015); J.D., American University Washington College of Law (2014); B.S., Life Science, Pennsylvania State University (2011). Note: he should not be confused with Michael L. Doane, a different longtime Adduci ITC attorney.