Mike Padden is a partner in Levenfeld Pearlstein’s Litigation and Intellectual Property Groups. In his 30 years of practice, Mike has successfully represented clients from a broad range of industries in a wide variety of business disputes, including actions based on patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, antitrust violations, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and other business torts.
In order to effectively represent his clients, Mike works to combine his extensive experience with creativity, responsiveness, and a consistent focus on the cost/benefit analysis of every step in the process. He enjoys digging into complex factual and legal issues to identify a simple, straightforward way to demonstrate the merits of his client’s position. Credibility, service and value are the fundamentals of his approach.
In recent years, Mike has focused especially on patent and trade secret litigation. He has successfully prosecuted and defended patent infringement claims involving a variety of technologies, including: drug delivery systems, construction materials, and internet business methods. He serves as co-chair of the ABA Patent Litigation Subcommittee and is a member of the working group that drafted and revised the Patent Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Representative matters:
• Uncovered misappropriation of engineering drawings by client’s former employee, leading to favorable settlement in litigation against competitor who hired the former employee
• Successfully defended major mining equipment manufacturer against multi-million dollar breach of warranty claim in international arbitration
• Defeated seven summary judgment motions and obtained summary judgment barring key defenses of laches and estoppel in pharmaceutical patent litigation, leading to settlement after two days of trial
• Successfully defended major telecommunications equipment manufacturer against antitrust and state law claims arising out of dealer termination by removing action from state court and prevailing in preliminary injunction hearing in arbitration
• Defeated repeated actions to bar a proposed real estate development and established right of a developer to recover damages against a municipality that obtains an improvidently granted preliminary injunction
For more, please click here.
