Mike is the founder of Martensen IP. He has practiced patent law since 1997, when, as a patent agent and while attending Duke University School of Law, he assisted a growing LED company in North Carolina defend itself against a patent lawsuit. Today, Mike’s practice covers a wide variety of intellectual property matters.

His broad experience includes prosecuting patents in mechanical engineering, computer science, software, fluid dynamics and medical devices. In addition to procuring intellectual property rights for clients, Mike also possesses several years of experience as an IP/patent litigator, having participated in all aspects of patent, trademark and trade secret litigation.

His foundation in intellectual property was laid working alongside leading IP attorneys at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Perkins Coie in Silicon Valley and Hogan Lovells in Colorado.

A United States Air Force Academy graduate and former fighter pilot, Mike has a BS in engineering science from the academy, an MS in aerospace engineering from Mississippi State University, an MBA from the University of West Florida and a law degree from Duke University.

Bar Admissions

• Colorado, 2005
• California, 2000
• Texas, 2011
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 1999
• U.S. District Court District of Colorado, 2002
• U.S. District Court Central District of California
• U.S. District Court Eastern District of California
• U.S. District Court Northern District of California
• U.S. District Court Southern District of California

Certified Legal Specialties

• Patents
• USPTO Bar

Issued Patents

• See a complete list of patents.

Representative Cases

• SanDisk v. Lexar Media (N.D. Cal.). Assisted with the representation of SanDisk, a manufacturer of computer flash memory, in a patent infringement suit against Lexar Media. SanDisk alleged that Lexar’s flash-memory storage cards infringed SanDisk’s patent.
• Crocs, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, et al. (ITC, Fed. Cir.) Assisted in a patent infringement suit in which we represented Crocs in a suit brought against several competitors before the International Trade Commission (ITC). The complaint contended that the competitors’ products infringed two of Crocs’ patents, one utility patent and one design patent. Ultimately, the ITC ruled that some of the competitors had infringed the utility patent, but that the utility patent was invalid for obviousness. The ITC further ruled the design patent valid but not infringed, and determined that Crocs had not satisfied the technical prong of the industry requirement under Section 337 for the design patent. In Crocs’ subsequent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, our attorneys secured a reversal of the ITC’s finding that the Crocs patents were obvious. After a comparison of the shoes in question, the court found infringement, and also reversed the ITC’s finding of no domestic industry on the design patent.
• Intel v. Broadcom (D. Del.). Assisted the firm is representing Broadcom, a major semiconductor manufacturer, in a patent infringement action brought by Intel. The five patents at issue involved video compression, networking technology, and semiconductor packaging. Intel sought monetary damages and an injunction sufficient to put Broadcom out of business.
• Novadigm v. Marimba (N.D. Cal.) Assisted the patent owner in a case involving a patent for differential-software distribution over a network, U.S. Patent No. 5,581,764 resulting in defeating the defendant’s inequitable-conduct defense in a bench trial.
• Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft (N.D. Cal.) Assisted in multiple patent matters in protracted litigation between Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft ultimately resulting in a $2B settlement.

Representative Publications

• Software Intellectual Property Rights: Is a Patent or a Copyright Best for Your Program? | Mar 26, 2018
• Intellectual Property Considerations in Government Contracts Related to Space And Cyber | Jun 15, 2017
• Patents and the Government Contractor | Jun 6, 2017
• Basic Must-Do Tips for Protecting SBIR Intellectual Property | Apr 27, 2016
• 5 Reasons Viable Startups Require Patents | Apr 5, 2016
• Changing the Rules: Understanding Government Impacts on Intellectual Property Rights | Oct 13, 2015
• Common Intellectual Property Mistakes | Sep 23, 2015
• The Hidden Value of Trademarks: Why They Matter in Government Contracts | Jun 10, 2015