Michelle Wang
Overview
Michelle Wang represents clients in intellectual property litigation and counseling. In addition to her background in biomedical engineering, she has experience in a broad range of technologies, including medical devices, life sciences, pharmaceuticals, disruptive technologies, and electronic devices, among others.
Career & Education
- University of Texas at Austin, B.S., with highest honors, Biomedical Engineering, 2009
- New York University School of Law, J.D., 2013
- New York
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
- National Asian Pacific American Bar Association
- Asian American Bar Association of New York
- New York Intellectual Property Law Association
Michelle's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.04.26
In Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2024-1822 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit distinguished between two sets of claims under a Section 101 analysis, invalidating one set as result-oriented “optimization” claims that did not recite how to achieve such optimization, but upholding the other set as patent-eligible for reciting specific configurations with defined parameters. The court also confirmed that patentees may prove infringement by combining standards-based and product-specific evidence on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 11.27.23
The ITC Continues to Play a Critical Role in Combating International Trade Secret Theft
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.11.23
Representative Matters
- Represented pharmaceutical company in patent infringement action involving pre-filled syringe technology in the Northern District of New York.
- Represented pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman patent action involving abuse-deterrent hydrocodone bitartrate extended-release tablets in the District of Delaware.
- Represented Rio Tinto in patent infringement action involving aluminum alloy in the District of Delaware.
- Defended Google in patent infringement action filed by a non-practicing entity involving wireless phone charging technology in the Western District of Texas.
- Represented Alamo Group in utility and design patent infringement actions involving heavy mulching machinery and components in the Southern District of Ohio.
- Represented Uni-Systems LLC in patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation action involving stadium retractable roof technology in the Eastern District of New York.
Michelle's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.04.26
In Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2024-1822 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit distinguished between two sets of claims under a Section 101 analysis, invalidating one set as result-oriented “optimization” claims that did not recite how to achieve such optimization, but upholding the other set as patent-eligible for reciting specific configurations with defined parameters. The court also confirmed that patentees may prove infringement by combining standards-based and product-specific evidence on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 11.27.23
The ITC Continues to Play a Critical Role in Combating International Trade Secret Theft
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.11.23
Recognition
- Commitment to Justice Awards – Legal Team Award, Her Justice, 2023
Michelle's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.04.26
In Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2024-1822 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit distinguished between two sets of claims under a Section 101 analysis, invalidating one set as result-oriented “optimization” claims that did not recite how to achieve such optimization, but upholding the other set as patent-eligible for reciting specific configurations with defined parameters. The court also confirmed that patentees may prove infringement by combining standards-based and product-specific evidence on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 11.27.23
The ITC Continues to Play a Critical Role in Combating International Trade Secret Theft
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.11.23
Insights
Implications of the America Invents Act: Reliance on Trade Secrets vs. Patents
|10.11.14
HIPLA/UH Annual Institute on Intellectual Property
IP Trio From Allen & Overy Leave For Crowell, As Firm Builds AI And Tech Expertise
|05.16.23
The National Law Journal
Michelle's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.04.26
In Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2024-1822 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit distinguished between two sets of claims under a Section 101 analysis, invalidating one set as result-oriented “optimization” claims that did not recite how to achieve such optimization, but upholding the other set as patent-eligible for reciting specific configurations with defined parameters. The court also confirmed that patentees may prove infringement by combining standards-based and product-specific evidence on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 11.27.23
The ITC Continues to Play a Critical Role in Combating International Trade Secret Theft
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.11.23
