Matthew J. Rizzolo


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


  • 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
  • Member, Intellectual Property Editorial Board, Law360 (2018-2020)
  • American Bar Association 
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • ITC Trial Lawyers Association
  • The National Law Journal “D.C. Rising Stars” (2020)

Matthew J. Rizzolo


Matt is a litigator who works extensively with technology companies to both enforce clients’ intellectual property rights and defend clients from infringement claims. Matt has significant experience litigating patent cases in a variety of jurisdictions, including federal district courts throughout the United States, the Court of Federal Claims, and in Section 337 actions before the United States International Trade Commission. His practice encompasses all facets of litigation, from pre-suit investigation through trial, post-trial proceedings, and appeals. 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, as well as biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. 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.

In addition to his patent experience, Matt is well-versed in litigating a broad range of additional intellectual property and unfair competition-related issues, including trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, FRAND licensing, and constitutional issues. He maintains an active pro bono practice and has represented pro bono clients in federal and state courts, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and before the Social Security Administration.

Matt frequently writes and speaks on a wide variety of intellectual property issues, and is a sought-after commentator who has been quoted in media such as The National Law Journal, Bloomberg, Reuters, CNBC, and Law360, among others. He is a co-host of Ropes & Gray’s IP(DC) podcast, which focuses on intellectual property developments emanating from Washington, DC. 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. 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.


International Trade Commission Section 337 Experience

  • Certain Balanced Armature Devices, Products Containing Same, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1186) – Representing third party GN Hearing in ITC investigation concerning trade secret misappropriation issues and pre-institution proceedings relating thereto.
  • Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways, and Related Hardware and Software Components (337-TA-1158) – Representing Rovi/TiVo adverse to Comcast in a Section 337 investigation involving six patents relating to DVR and broadband gateway technology.
  • Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products and Related Components Thereof (337-TA-1131) – Successfully secured a Final Determination finding no violation of Section 337 by Emerson Electric in a four-patent ITC investigation brought by non-practicing entity SIPCO against Emerson’s WirelessHART-compatible industrial wireless technology and infrastructure products.
  • Certain Digital Video Receivers and Related Hardware and Software Components (337-TA-1103) – Represented Rovi/TiVo adverse to Comcast in a Section 337 investigation involving seven patents relating to interactive program guides and related technologies; successfully secured a finding of violation of Section 337 and issuance of a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against Comcast and its set-top box suppliers.
  • Certain Clidinium Bromide and Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1109) – Served as lead counsel representing A Major Pharmaceutical Company in a non-patent Section 337 investigation at the International Trade Commission involving claims of unfair competition and false advertising of FDA approval by manufacturers and sellers of unauthorized generic versions of a branded drug used to treat gastrointestinal disorders. The investigation was the first to proceed to an early evidentiary hearing under the issues of both domestic industry and injury.
  • Certain L-Tryptophan, L-Tryptophan Products, and Their Methods of Production (337-TA-1005 / Fed. Cir. / Supreme Court) – Served as lead counsel defending CJ CheilJedang adverse to its competitor Ajinomoto in a two-patent ITC dispute relating to genetically-modified bacteria for the production of L-tryptophan. Secured initial determination of no violation of Section 337 at trial, with the presiding Administrative Law Judge finding both patents to be invalid and not infringed and that Ajinomoto failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding of non-infringement in a precedential opinion, allowing CJ’s business to continue uninterrupted. Filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on a novel issue involving prosecution history estoppel arising from the case.
  • Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof (337-TA-1001 / Fed. Cir. / Supreme Court) – Represented Rovi/TiVo adverse to Comcast in an investigation involving seven patents relating to interactive program guides and related technologies. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding of a violation of Section 337 and issued a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease & Desist Order against Comcast and its set-top box suppliers. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s decision in a March 2020 precedential opinion, and Comcast filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
  • 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.
  • 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. 
  • 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. 

District Court and Patent Trial & Appeal Board Experience

  • Natera, Inc. v. A Leading Genomics Company (D. Del.) – Defending a leading genomics company from claims of infringement of four patents relating to cell-free DNA sequencing.
  • Teradyne, Inc. v. Astronics Corporation (C.D. Cal.) – Representing Teradyne, Inc., a leading supplier of automation equipment for test and industrial applications, in a case raising patent, copyright, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims against Astronics Corporation and a subsidiary.
  • Ragner Technology et al. v. National Express / Telebrands (D.N.J.) – Representing patent owner Ragner Technology and exclusive licensee Tristar Products in a set of competitor cases, asserting patents covering expandable garden hoses and methods of use, as well as raising claims of false advertising and unfair competition.
  • Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc. (PTAB) – Representing patent owner GREE, Inc. in multiple Post-Grant Review proceedings defending its video game-related patents against challenges under Section 101 and 112 brought by its competitor Supercell.
  • Veeco Instruments Inc. v. SGL Carbon, LLC et al.,(E.D.N.Y. / Fed. Cir.) – Represented Veeco in a two-patent infringement case related to removable wafer carriers used in the production of LEDs in Metal-Organic Chemical Vapor Deposition (MOCVD) systems. Successfully obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting SGL from supplying infringing wafer carriers to Veeco’s chief MOCVD competitor, after which the case settled while on appeal.
  • Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (PTAB) – Defended patent owner Veeco Instruments against a petition for inter partes review brought by its competitor AMEC. Petition was withdrawn pre-institution after settlement.
  • Sportbrain Holdings LLC v. GN Netcom, Inc. et al. (N.D. Ill.) – Represented GN Netcom in defending patent infringement claims relating to wireless headphones and applications relating thereto. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case prior to the Answer after GN Netcom alleged lack of a Rule 11 basis for Plaintiff’s infringement claims.
  • Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC (U.S. Sup. Ct.): – Co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of the world’s leading consumer electronics company, supporting the respondent, in a case addressing the authority of the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board to rule on the patentability of issued patents in inter partes review proceedings.
  • Represented 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 successfully represented StrikeForce in defeating two petitions for inter partes review 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.) – Defended 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.
  • 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.
  • 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. 
  • 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. 



  • Speaker, “Interests and Activity of the Sovereign vis-à-vis Private Intellectual Property Rights,” IPO Annual Meeting (September 21, 2020)
  • Speaker, “Patent Venue Pitfalls of Remote Work Arrangements: Application of Cray Factors, Risk Mitigation, Court Treatment,” Strafford Webinar (September 3, 2020)
  • Speaker, “Case Studies on Developments in Satisfying the Domestic Industry Requirement,” ACI’s 12th Annual Practitioners’ Think Tank on ITC Litigation and Enforcement (August 24-25, 2020)
  • Speaker, “Latest Developments in Awarding Attorneys’ Fees Under Section 285,” California Lawyers Association Webinar (August 28, 2019) 
  • Speaker, “The Summer of Patentable Subject Matter,” Ropes & Gray Webinar (June 17, 2019) 
  • Speaker, “Examining Technology Transactions Under the Lens of the America Invents Act,” 6th Annual MIP International Women’s Leadership Forum (June 6, 2019)
  • Coordinator, “Strategic Implication of Parallel Proceedings in the District Courts, ITC, and PTAB” (May 15-17, 2019)
  • Speaker, “Preparing Your Strategy for a Shifting Pro-Patent Environment," MIP US Patent Forum (April 3-4, 2019)
  • Speaker, “How to Make "Connections" and "Friends" in 140 Characters or Less: Social Networking for Lawyers," Federal Circuit Bar Association Conference (March 12, 2019)
  • Speaker, “Supreme Court Update: Oil States & SAS Institute: The Aftermath,” Ropes & Gray Webinar (May 1, 2018)
  • Speaker, “Cease and Desist Orders: Practical Insight for Complainants and Respondents,” ACI Expert Forum on ITC Litigation and Enforcement (March 6, 2018)
  • Speaker, “Roadblock PTAB: Litigation Strategies & IPR Antidotes,” Ropes & Gray Webinar (February 22, 2018)
  • Speaker, “An Examination of Section 337: The ITC – Going Beyond Patent Litigation,” Momentum IP Counsel Exchange (December 12, 2017)
  • Speaker, “Supreme Court Debrief: Oil States and SAS Institute,” Ropes & Gray Webinar (November 28, 2017) 
  • 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)
  • JD, with honors, The George Washington University Law School, 2008
  • BS (Interdisciplinary Engineering and Management), with great distinction, Clarkson University, 2003
Cookie Settings