Matt is a seasoned litigator who works with companies across industries, developing and implementing creative strategies to enforce clients’ intellectual property rights and defend clients from infringement claims. Matt leads the firm’s practice in Section 337 actions before the United States International Trade Commission and has significant experience litigating patent cases in a variety of jurisdictions, including federal district courts throughout the United States, the Court of Federal Claims, the Federal Circuit, and before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, as well as in IP-related proceedings before U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 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

  • Advised and represented a Major Consumer Products Manufacturer regarding Section 337 exclusion order enforcement issues with the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch of U.S. Customs.
  • Certain Video Processing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-1343) – Representing Roku, Inc. in responding to third-party subpoena issued by complainant DivX in investigation relating to video and graphics processing technology.
  • Certain Semiconductor Devices Having Layered Dummy Fill, Electronic Devices, and Components Thereof (No. 337-TA-1342) – Defended Marvell Semiconductor and MACOM Technology Solutions against semiconductor design-related patent infringement claims brought by Bell Semiconductor. The investigation was settled and terminated shortly after the commencement of discovery.
  • Certain Electronic Devices and Semiconductor Devices With Timing-Aware Dummy Fill and Components Thereof (337-TA-1319) – Defended Marvell Semiconductor against semiconductor design-related patent infringement claims brought by Bell Semiconductor, who withdrew its complaint shortly after Marvell and other respondents successfully persuaded the presiding ALJ to set an extended target date.
  • Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Digital Televisions Containing The Same (337-TA-1318) – Represented Roku, Inc. in responding to third-party subpoena issued by complainant AMD in investigation relating to graphics processing technology.
  • Certain Botulinum Toxin Products and Process for Manufacturing or Relating to Same (337-TA-1313) – Represented Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals in responding to third-party subpoena issued by complainant Medytox in investigation relating to botulinum toxin products.
  • Certain Networking Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof and Systems Containing the Same (337-TA-1298) – Defended cloud storage provider NetApp against patent infringement claims brought by Proven Networks. Successfully obtained summary determination of no violation based on Proven’s waiver of its domestic industry theory through prior patent license agreement with RPX Corporation.
  • Certain Automated Put Walls and Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems, Associated Vehicles, Associated Control Software, and Component Parts Thereof (337-TA-1293) – Represented respondents Invata, LLC and HC Robotics in pre-institution proceedings in a multi-patent Section 337 investigation involving automated warehouse and logistics technology. Obtained withdrawal of one of the asserted patents prior to the ITC’s institution of investigation.
  • Certain Smart Thermostat Systems, Smart HVAC Systems, Smart HVAC Control Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1258 – Successfully obtained early termination of investigation on the basis of withdrawal of the complaint against client Emerson Electric in a five-patent ITC investigation involving smart thermostats.
  • Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Products Containing the Same and Components Thereof (337-TA-1231) – Defended a leading multinational electronics company against claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation in a Section 337 action and multi-forum dispute brought by non-practicing entity Pictos Technologies, Inc., forcing a favorable settlement in the months before trial.
  • Certain Furniture Products Finished with Decorative Wood Grain Paper and Components Thereof (337-TA-1229) – Served as lead counsel defending Walker Edison Furniture Company, LLC against a claim of copyright infringement concerning the wood grain pattern applied to models of its ready-to-assemble furniture. Successfully resolved the dispute via consent order at minimal cost to client.
  • Certain Digital Video-Capable Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-1224) – Representing Roku Inc. in responding to multiple third-party subpoenas in a case relating to HDMI standards and anti-piracy technology.
  • Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing Same (337-TA-1222) – Representing Roku Inc. in responding to a third-party subpoena issued by complainant DivX in a case involving video processing and streaming technology.
  • Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof (337-TA-1200) – Successfully defended Roku, Inc. against claims of infringement in a six-patent case relating to remote control programming technology. Obtained withdrawal or finding of no violation as to five patents and implemented non-infringing design-around of remaining patent. Also successfully represented Roku in multiple Part 177 proceeding before the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch of U.S. Customs, obtaining findings of non-infringement for additional modifications to Roku’s products. 
  • 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.
  • Successfully represented Rovi/TiVo in its multi-year, multi-jurisdictional intellectual property dispute with Comcast over digital video recording, broadband gateway, and universal program guide functionality, including in three ITC investigations (337-TA-1158, 337-TA-1103, 337-TA-1001). After Rovi obtained two separate exclusion orders, a favorable Federal Circuit precedential decision, and a denial of Comcast’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, Matt helped Rovi secure an Initial Determination of infringement of two additional patents by Comcast and a recommendation of a third exclusion order by the presiding ALJ. Shortly before the Commission issued its final decision, the parties settled, with Comcast agreeing to a 15-year license to Rovi’s patent portfolio.
  • 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 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 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

  • Simplex Designs v. Tightline Development (N.D. Ga.) – Represented medical device manufacturer in declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and state law unfair competition claims against a competitor. Case successfully settled shortly after filing.
  • Tranquility IP v. NetApp (D. Co.) – Represented cloud storage provider NetApp in patent infringement case relating to wireless communication technology. Tranquility withdrew its complaint after it was presented with clear non-infringement positions. 
  • Bell Semiconductor v. Marvell Semiconductor / MACOM Technology Solutions (D. Mass / C.D. Cal.) – Represented multiple semiconductor manufacturers in ten separate district court actions involving claims of patent infringement related to various aspects of semiconductor technology. The disputes settled after the intervention of a third party.
  • Focus Global Solutions v. NetApp (D. Del.) – Defended cloud storage provider NetApp in patent infringement case relating to structure of storage area networks. Complaint was withdrawn after NetApp filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the marking statute.
  • WFR IP v. GN Audio USA (D. Del.) – Represented wireless audio device manufacturer in patent infringement case relating to construction of wireless headphones. Case settled favorably after GN Audio filed motion to dismiss for lack of compliance with marking requirement.
  • Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics / Ecolink Intelligent Technology, Inc. (PTAB) – Representing Roku in multiple patent validity challenges to patents held by UEI and Ecolink.
  • Signify North America Corp. v. All Star Lighting Supplies (D.N.J.) – Defended small lighting device company against multi-patent infringement suit from Signify, formerly Philips Lighting. 
  • GN Audio A/S v. Snik LLC (N.D. Cal.) – Filed declaratory judgment action on behalf of major wireless audio device manufacturer in response to repeated licensing demands from non-practicing entity. Case settled shortly after filing on favorable terms for our client.
  • Creekview IP v. Jabra Corporation / GN Audio (D. Del.) – Represented wireless audio device manufacturer in obtaining favorable settlement in patent case relating wireless communication technology.
  • Natera, Inc. v. A Leading Genomics Company (D. Del.) – Defended 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. 

Areas of Practice