Michael Harbour represents clients in complex civil disputes. His practice spans diverse areas of law, including complex commercial litigation, antitrust, intellectual property disputes, and securities litigation. Michael also has an active appellate practice. He has represented clients in precedent setting appeals in numerous courts, including the United States Supreme Court.
Prior to joining Irell, Michael clerked for the Honorable Mary M. Schroeder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He currently serves on the firm’s Hiring Committee and is co-chair of the Summer Committee.
- Intel Corporation et al v. Fortress Investment Group LLC et al., 5:19-cv-07651 (N.D. Cal.). Representing Fortress Investment Group LLC and VLSI Technology LLC against antitrust claims brought by Intel Corporation and Apple Inc. After issuing a discovery stay, the district court has twice dismissed Intel and Apple’s claims.
- Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 365; (2019). Represented NantKwest in a successful appeal before the United States Supreme Court challenging the Patent and Trademark Office’s ability to recover attorneys’ fees in suits brought under Section 145 of the Patent Act. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Section 145 did not authorize the PTO to collect attorneys’ fees.
- Irving Firemen’s Relief & Retirement Fund v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., 4:17-cv-05558 (N.D. Cal.). Secured a dismissal with prejudice in a securities fraud class action brought against Uber seeking billions of dollars in damages. The case was one of the first of its kind, brought under California’s market manipulation statute. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later affirmed the district court's dismissal in a published, precedent setting decision.
- Represented a leading developer of semiconductor packaging technology in a patent licensing dispute. The case settled favorably after the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
- Fowler Packing Company, Inc. v. Lanier, 844 F.3d 809 (2016). Prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which the court held that two employers could bring an equal protection challenge to a California statute that precluded them from raising an affirmative defense to wage and hour claims afforded to other employers. The Daily Journal recognized this case as one of the “Top Appellate Reversals” of 2016.
- Secured class decertification in a federal class action against a homeopathic and dietary supplement company alleging false advertising.
- Represented two film studios in a class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and seeking over $500 million in damages.
- Obtained asylum for transgender woman who had fled persecution in Guatemala.
- “The exact nature of California's standing doctrine,” Daily Journal (December 31, 2018)
Harvard Law School (J.D., 2013), cum laude
Vanderbilt University (Ph.D., 2010)
Emory University (B.A., 2004), with Highest Honors; Phi Beta Kappa
- California, 2014
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Central and Northern Districts of California, and the District of Colorado
- Hon. Mary M. Schroeder, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , 2013-2014