×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

BuchalterAttorney
no photo

Michael Alan Preciado

Not yet reviewed

18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92612-0514

Product Liability Litigation and Criminal Defense

About Michael Alan Preciado

Michael Alan Preciado is a lawyer practicing product liability litigation, criminal defense. Michael received a B.S. degree from Northern State University in 2009, and has been licensed for 13 years. Michael practices at Buchalter in Irvine, CA.

Michael Alan Preciado (Irvine, California)

Reviews for Michael

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Other 2
    • Product Liability Litigation
    • Criminal Defense

Practice Details

  • Payment Information
    Payment & Cost Features
    Fixed hourly rates
    Fixed fees available
  • Firm Information
    Position
    Attorney
    Firm Name
    Buchalter
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Transactions
    Representative Transactions: First patent lawsuit between two Japanese companies to enable Maruchan ramen noodles to be sold in U.S.; Represented NASA at Jet Propulsion Laboratory since 1975; Represented inventor of hard drive systems in patent/licensing/litigation enforcement resulting in 30 million win; Generated Patent, Copyright Portfolio and licensed toy line with robots converted to vehicles with over 1 billion in royalties; Recovered 28 million losses in leveraged offshore US derivatives investment; Representative Cases; Motionless Keyboard Company v. Microsoft Corporation et al., *2004 WL1274401 (D.Or.), USDC Oregon 2004, *2005 WL 1899377 (D.Or.), USDC Oregon 2005; Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft Corp. , 486 F.3d 1376 (Fed Cir. 2007); REFAC International Ltd. v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al. , 921 F.2d 1247, US Court of Appeals, Federal 1990; DTA Corp. v. J & J Enterprises, 715 F. Sup. 290 (C.D. Cal 1988); Angres v. Dioptics Medical Products, Inc., 2 USPQ 2D 1041 (C.D. Cal 1986); Codex Corporation and Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. v. Milgo Electronic Corporation and International Communications Corporation , 1982 US Dist. LEXIS 13501, 1973 US Dist. LEXIS 19862, Massachusetts 1982; 1983; Novag Industries, Ltd., et al. v. Fidelity Electronics, Ltd. , 221 USPQ (BNA) 190, C.D. Cal 1982; Fiberglass In Motion v. Hindelang , 216 USPQ (BNA) 1027, C.D. Cal 1981, Affirmed in 1984/738 F.2d 452; 1984 US App LEXIS 15524; Maruchan, Inc. v. Nissin Shokuhin Kabushiki Kaisha, Ltd. et al. , 205 USPQ (BNA) 197, C.D. Cal 1979; Scovill Manufacturing Company v. Winnie Mae Manufacturing Com., (Inc.) , 195 USPQ (BNA) 155, C.D. Cal 1976

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    2013, Supreme Court of California
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    2013, California
    United States District Court, Central District of California
    United States District Court, Northern District of California
    Memberships

    Professional Memberships & Activities

    •Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County (2012-present)
    •Orange County Coalition for Diversity in the Law (2014-present)
    •Co-Chair (2016-present)

  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Chapman University School of Law
    J.D.
    magna cum laude

    Chapman University School of Law
    J.D.
    2013 Senior Symposium Editor

    Chapman University School of Law
    J.D.
    Chapman Law Review

    Chapman University School of Law
    J.D.
    CALI Awards: Civil Procedure I
    Other Education
    Northern State University
    Class of 2009
    B.S.
    Marketing

    Northern State University
    Class of 2009
    B.S.
    minor in Economics

    Northern State University
    Class of 2009
    B.S.
    Dean's List

    Northern State University
    Class of 2009
    B.S.
    Northern State University Rugby National Champions

Email Michael Alan Preciado

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions