Matthew J. Rizzolo

Counsel

rizzolo-matthew
  • JD, with honors, The George Washington University Law School, 2008
  • BS (Interdisciplinary Engineering and Management), with great distinction, Clarkson University, 2003

Qualifications

  • District of Columbia, 2009
  • New York, 2009
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 2005

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Supreme Court, 2014
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 2015
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2009
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, 2017
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2012
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2009
  • American Bar Association 
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • ITC Trial Lawyers Association

Matthew J. Rizzolo

Counsel

Matt works extensively with technology companies to both enforce clients’ intellectual property rights and defend clients from patent infringement claims. Matt has significant experience litigating patent cases in a variety of jurisdictions, including federal district courts throughout the United States and in Section 337 actions before the United States International Trade Commission. His practice encompasses all facets of litigation, from pre-suit investigation through managing document discovery, taking and defending fact and expert depositions, claim construction, motions practice, trial preparation, trial, and post-trial proceedings. Matt has counseled clients in cases involving a wide variety of technical fields, including smartphones, video gaming devices, computer software and hardware, telecommunications, and Internet-related services. He has additional experience in drafting and negotiating patent and technology licensing agreements, and is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

Prior to law school, Matt worked in various technical and engineering positions for Cooper Industries, an electrical products manufacturer, as part of Cooper’s Operations Leadership Program. While at a previous law firm, Matt also co-founded and wrote for The Essential Patent Blog, a legal blog that focuses on issues relating to standard-essential patents.

Experience

  • Certain L-Tryptophan, L-Tryptophan Products, and Their Methods of Production (337-TA-1005) – Lead counsel defending CJ CheilJedang adverse to its competitor Ajinomoto in a two-patent dispute relating to genetically-modified bacteria for the production of L-tryptophan.
  • Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof, (337-TA-1001) – Representing Rovi/TiVo adverse to Comcast in an investigation involving seven patents relating to interactive program guides and related technologies.
  • Veeco Instruments Inc. v. SGL Carbon, LLC et al., (E.D.N.Y.) – Representing Veeco in a four-patent infringement case related to removable wafer carriers used in the production of LEDs in Metal-Organic Chemical Vapor Deposition (MOCVD) systems.
  • Representing StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. in multiple district court actions in the Central District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia involving the assertion of its patents relating to out-of-band authentication techniques and systems against SecureAuth Corp. and Entrust, Inc.  Also representing StrikeForce in defense of one of its patents in inter partes review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
  • XR Communications, LLC v. Extreme Networks, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Defending Extreme Networks against patent infringement claims relating to wireless communications systems and technology.
  • Plectrum LLC v. Extreme Networks, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Defending Extreme Networks against patent infringement claims relating to various aspects of computer networking technology.
  • VStream Technologies v. Contour, LLC (E.D. Tex.) – Defended Contour in a five-patent case relating to video compression technologies.
  • Defended a multinational electronics company in a W.D. Tex. patent infringement litigation regarding keypad technology.
  • Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc. (D. Del.) – Represented Contour against GoPro in a patent infringement lawsuit related to wearable digital video cameras.
  • Uusi, LLC v. The United States of America (C.F.C. / PTAB) – Defended third party defendant AM General, LLC in a patent infringement case brought under 28 U.S.C. Section 1498 relating to eight patents concerning diesel engine technology and represented AM General in four related Inter Partes Review proceedings.
  • Venadium LLC v. Harman International Industries Inc. (E.D Tex.) – Successfully defended Harman in a patent infringement suit relating to Bluetooth technology. Complaint was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after Harman filed a motion to dismiss based on a licensing defense.
  • Rosetta-Wireless Corp. v. Motorola Mobility Inc. et al. (N.D. Ill.) – Defending Motorola Mobility Inc. in a patent infringement case brought by a non-practicing entity regarding smartphone devices.
  • Certain Non-Volatile Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-916) – Represented Spansion in an ITC investigation brought against Macronix and several electronics manufacturers, relating to infringement of four patents directed to flash memory chips.
  • Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-909) – Defended Spansion in an ITC investigation adverse to Macronix, relating to three patents directed to features and fabrication of flash memory devices.
  • Macronix Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Spansion Inc. et al. (No. 14-cv-01890, N.D. Cal.) – Defended Spansion in a patent infringement case adverse to Macronix, relating to seven patents directed to flash memory devices.
  • MMR v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (C.D. Cal. / Fed. Cir. / PTAB) – Represented Allscripts Healthcare Solutions in patent infringement suit relating to electronic health records. Obtained summary judgment of invalidity of both asserted patents, and cancellation of all asserted claims in parallel Covered Business Method Review proceeding. 
  • Defended a major consumer electronics company in litigation regarding cryptographic protocols. 
  • Patent licensing dispute with Rockstar Consortium – Represented several multiple system operators (MSOs) in licensing negotiations with non-practicing entity Rockstar regarding patents formerly owned by Nortel Networks.
  • Patent licensing dispute with Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC – Represented Bright House Networks in licensing dispute with non-practicing entity Innovatio regarding patents relating to the IEEE 802.11 wireless networking standard.
  • Cambrian Science v. Cox Communications, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal.) – Defended Cox Communications in a patent infringement case involving photonic integrated circuits. 
  • Digimedia v. Cox Radio, et al. (D. Del.) – Defended Cox Radio in a patent infringement case involving digital music broadcast systems.
  • Certain Gaming and Entertainment Systems, Related Software, and Products Containing Same (337-TA-752) – Represented Motorola Mobility, Inc. in an ongoing ITC investigation against Microsoft relating to five patents asserted against features of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 video gaming system. 
  • Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Nos. C10-01823 and C11-00595, W.D. Wash.) – Representing Motorola Mobility, Inc. in multiple ongoing cases against Microsoft regarding patents related to features and functionality of computer, mobile device, and video game operating systems and software, as well as contractual disputes regarding licensing negotiations and obligations to standards-setting organizations. 
  • Spark Networks USA, LLC v. Humor Rainbow, Inc. et al. (No. 2:11-cv-01430, C.D. Cal.) – Represented Spark Networks (operator of various online dating websites such as JDate) in a lawsuit against two competitors involving Spark’s patent for a computerized anonymous matching system. Both defendants settled prior to the close of discovery after Spark successfully opposed a Bilski-based motion to dismiss. 
  • Activision TV, Inc. v. Richardson Electronics, Ltd. et al. (No. 1:10-cv-03483, N.D. Ill.) – Defended NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc. against claims of infringement of two patents related to remote display advertising systems. The parties amicably resolved their dispute prior to a claim construction hearing and after NECDS filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the patents-in-suit. 
  • Huntair, Inc. v. Greenheck Fan Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-00277, W.D Wis.) – Represented Huntair in a successful assertion of a patent relating an airflow measuring system for centrifugal fans. The defendant, a Huntair competitor, settled prior to the close of discovery. 
  • Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs (337-TA-706) – Represented Motorola, Inc. in an ITC investigation against RIM relating to five patents directed to features of wireless telecommunication devices and servers. RIM settled with Motorola shortly before a Markman hearing as part of a global settlement of all litigation between the parties. 
  • Motorola, Inc. v. VTech Communications Inc., et al. (No. 5:07-cv-00171, E.D. Tex.) – Represented Motorola, Inc. in a lawsuit involving utility and design patents related to telecommunications products and features. VTech settled a month prior to trial. 

Publications

Presentations

  • Speaker, “Defend Trade Secrets Act,” Managing IP 2017 US Patent Forum (March 23, 2017)
  • Speaker, “Podcast- Supreme Court Preview: TC Heartland v. Kraft,” Ropes & Gray Alert (March 22, 2017)
  • Speaker, “Patent Enforcement by Non-Practicing Entities,” AIPLA Quarterly Journal Symposium (March 17, 2017)
  • Speaker, “How to Resolve the Challenging Interplay Between Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and ITC Litigation,” ACI Expert Forum on ITC Litigation & Enforcement (February 23, 2017)
  • Speaker,  “In-Depth Case Review and The Future of Section 337 Enforcement,” ACI Expert Forum on ITC Litigation & Enforcement (February 22, 2017)