![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/IPWatchdog%20-%202023/assets/images/temp/logo-small@2x.png){kind=logo}
Michael J. Barresi
Partner
Goldberg Segalla
Michael J. Barresi is a partner with Goldberg Segalla. He focuses his practice on all aspects of patent litigation in U.S. district courts including pre-suit investigations, discovery, Markman hearings, expert witness discovery and testimony, and trial. He has litigated complex patent litigation cases involving a wide range of technologies including internet technology, as well as in the life sciences, biotechnology, and the pharmaceutical industry. Drawing on his degree in biochemistry, Michael brings deep and broad technical acumen to cases requiring knowledge of small molecules, biologics, antibodies, and other compounds that form the basis of his clients’ products.
Michael has experience working with Fortune 500 companies, small and mid-sized companies, universities, foreign entities and individuals. He manages and helps build clients’ intellectual property portfolios. He has written, negotiated, and reviewed technology agreements, including technology transfer agreements, consulting agreements, confidentiality agreements, software license agreements, assignments, and others. Michael joined Goldberg Segalla in 2016 and has been a member of the patent bar since 2013.
Recent Articles by Michael J. Barresi
Patent eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been effective tools at the pleading stage for parties defending allegations of patent infringement. Defendants often attempt to avoid the costs of litigation by filing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6), seeking to invalidate the asserted patent(s) on the grounds that the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter — such as an “abstract idea.” Previously, a key tactic for plaintiffs to overcome such “Section 101 motions” was by amending the complaint and annexing an expert declaration. Recently, however, this strategy has been called into question due to a recent decision in Marble VOIP Partners LLC v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.,