Miguel J. Bombach
Miguel focuses on patents in the electrical and computing arts with extensive experience in inter partes review proceedings that have reached final written decision.
Miguel Bombach’s practice includes district court litigation, inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), patent prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and patent portfolio due diligence. He has been responsible for many institutions and claim invalidations as petitioner.
Miguel worked on technologies before the PTAB and litigated patents relating to semiconductors, electromagnetics, computer networks, integrated circuits, memories, image processing, and telecommunications, among others respectively. He also has experience prosecuting patents in display technologies, logic control systems, orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) transmission systems and networks, optical modulation systems, wavefront optics, wireless telephones, and cloud computing systems.
Previously, Miguel worked as an electrical engineer at Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, where he designed and tested computer hardware and software for radar systems in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, and Nagoya, Japan.
Education & Credentials
Education
- New York University School of Law, J.D., 2010
- University of Texas at El Paso, B.S., Electrical Engineering, cum laude, 2005
Bar and Court Admissions
-
California
-
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Related Employment
- Morrison & Foerster, LLP, San Diego, CA, Associate, 2011; Summer Associate, 2008, 2009
- Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, Tewksbury, MA, Electrical Engineer, 2006-2007
Professional Recognition
Recognized by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, Litigation - Patent; Patent Law, 2021-2025
Insights
News
Professional Experience
Inter Partes Reviews
Petition for Inter Partes Review by HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corp.
Counsel for petitioner HTC in two IPRs relating to near field communication technologies. All challenged claims in both IPRs were deemed un-patentable via final written decision.
Petition for Inter Partes Review by Netflix, Inc. and Roku, Inc.
Counsel for petitioners Netflix and Roku in IPRs relating to media streaming. Out of six petitions filed, all were instituted. Case settled shortly after institution.
Petition for Inter Partes Review by kCura, LLC
Counsel for petitioner kCura in an IPRs relating to document searching. All claims of challenged patent instituted.
Petition for Inter Partes Review by T-Mobile US, Inc.
Counsel for petitioner T-Mobile in two IPRs against two patents relating to telecommunication networks. Both IPRs were instituted.
Patent Prosecution
Prosecuted patents for various companies, including ZTE Corp, Apple Inc.*, Kyocera Corp.* and others in a variety of technological fields, such as displays, OFDM transmission systems and networks, logic control systems, optical modulation systems, wavefront optics, e-commerce systems, wireless telephones, cloud computing systems and mechanical actuators and tools, among others.
Patent Litigation
ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International v. Round Rock Research LLC
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Counsel for defendant ASUS in patent litigation relating to memory and semiconductor devices.
NFC Technology, LLC v. HTC America, Inc. et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for defendant HTC in patent litigation concerning near field communication and asserted claims invalidated before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board.; pending appeal.
Orostream LLC v. NHL Interactive Cyber Enterprises, LLC/Zuffa, LLC
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for defendants NHL and Zuffa in patent litigation relating to dynamic video delivery; patent invalidated as being subject matter ineligible.
Convergent Media Solutions LLC v. Hulu, LLC/Netflix, Inc./Roku, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Counsel for defendants Hulu, Netflix and Roku in patent litigation relating to media streaming.
Bradium Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for Microsoft in patent litigation relating to mapping and imagery display.
Transcenic Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for Microsoft in patent litigation relating to mapping and imagery display.
StylePath, Inc. v. Just Fabulous, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Counsel for Just Fabulous in patent litigation related to e-commerce websites.
Clouding IP LLC v. Microsoft Corporation/Amazon Inc. et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for defendant Amazon and Microsoft in patent litigation relating to cloud computing.
Immersion Corporation v. HTC Corporation et. al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counsel for defendant HTC in patent litigation relating to haptics in mobile phones.
Electronic Imaging Devices, 337-TA-850
International Trade Commission
Counsel for respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America Inc. in patent investigation relating to camera operating system functionality.
EchoStar Technologies Corporation v. TiVo Inc. et al.*
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for EchoStar in patent litigation relating to set-top boxes.
Altera Corp. v. LSI Corp.*
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Counsel for plaintiff Altera in patent litigation relating to memory and transistor devices.
*Prior Experience