Matthew Shapiro is a trial lawyer in the intellectual property litigation group, with more than a decade of experience across all major patent venues, including patent-centric district courts, the International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Matthew represents clients from pre-suit investigation through appeal, with experience managing the day-to-day activities of large-scale litigations, leading technical and discovery teams, developing case strategies, and preparing and presenting witnesses at trial. Matthew also has considerable experience with post-grant proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, where he has served as counsel in more than thirty proceedings.
Matthew’s experience spans a broad range of technical fields, including computer-based technologies in the consumer electronics, industrial process management, insurance, digital printing, and internet-based service industries. Matthew also maintains a pro bono practice, representing clients in both state and federal courts.
Prior to law school, Matthew worked as a computer and software engineer for Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors designing software in Java, C, and C++ for sonar navigation and positive train control systems. Matthew is the co-inventor of U.S. Patent No. 7,383,719 for an Automated Passenger Screening System, which resulted from his active contributions to the company’s “think tank.”
Matthew has an undergraduate degree in Computer Science and Engineering from the University of Connecticut ranking first in his graduating class in the school of engineering. He wrote his honors thesis on a Method for Quantitative Analysis of the Software Defect Life Cycle.
Experience
- Collision Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex., D.N.H.): Represent Collision in a set of related litigations concerning infringement of 3G and LTE patents by Nokia and Ericsson’s infrastructure products and a separate contract dispute between Collision and Nokia.
- ParkerVision, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. (W.D. Tex., PTAB, Fed. Cir.): Represent LG in a 10-patent litigation and two inter partes reviews involving Wi-Fi wireless down conversion technologies.
- Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented IP Bridge in a set of related litigations concerning infringement of LTE and 5G essential patents by Ericsson and Nokia’s infrastructure products.
- Certain Electronic Devices, Including Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1200 (ITC): Defending Roku, Inc. against claims of infringement in a six-patent case relating to programming of universal remote controls.
- Certain Digital Imaging Devices and Products Containing the Same and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1231 (ITC, Fed. Cir.): Defended Samsung against claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation in a Section 337 action brought by non-practicing entity Pictos Technologies, Inc.
- A Leading Private Research University (JAMS): Successfully defended client against an alleged fraud claim related to the licensing of a pharmaceutical asset.
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Cellect, LLC (PTAB, USPTO): Representing Samsung as Petitioner in multiple inter partes reviews and ex parte reexaminations concerning image sensor patents.
- Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products and Related Components Thereof, 337-TA-1131 (ITC): Achieved a finding of no violation on behalf of Respondents Emerson Electric Co. and Tadiran Batteries Ltd. in a Section 337 investigation brought by SIPCO LLC related to wireless mesh networking products.
- Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO et al.(N.D. Ga., PTAB, Fed. Cir., S. Ct.): Represent Emerson Electric in a 10-patent lawsuit, multiple inter partes review and covered business method proceedings and appeals therefrom relating to wireless mesh network technology.
- Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al. (D. Del.): Represented IP Bridge at jury trial in asserting standards-essential patents related to the 4G/LTE telecommunications standard. After seven-day trial, the jury found all four asserted claims valid and infringed and awarded FRAND damages.
- Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al. v. Acceleration Bay LLC (PTAB, Fed. Cir.): Represented three global computer gaming companies, including Electronic Arts and Activision Blizzard, on appeal and during the underlying inter partes review proceedings challenging three patents related to broadcasting information over computer networks.
- Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex., PTAB, Fed. Cir.): Defended client as lead technical associate for one of three asserted patents during jury trial resulting in a jury finding of invalidity, and represented client through appeal of an inter partes review proceeding related to same patent, resulting in a finding of all challenged claims unpatentable.
- A Leading Provider of Multimedia Control Devices (E.D. Tex.): Defended against alleged infringement of network-based lighting control products by a non-practicing entity.
- A Large Japanese Automotive Manufacturer (E.D. Tex.): Defended against infringement allegations concerning LCD backlighting and LED tail light technologies by a non-practicing entity.
- Shortridge v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Defended ADP against patent infringement allegations related to payroll reporting. Patent invalidated for claiming unpatentable subject matter under the Supreme Court’s Alice decision.
- Athenahealth, Inc. v. AdvancedMD Software, Inc. (D. Mass.): Defended an Automatic Data Processing, Inc. subsidiary in patent infringement litigation involving web-based healthcare insurance claims processing.
- RR Donnelley & Sons Company v. Xerox Corporation (N.D. Ill., PTAB): Asserted six RR Donnelley patents concerning variable data printing and raster image processing technologies, and defended validity of two asserted patents in an inter partes review proceeding.
- A Major Commercial Insurance Company (N.D. Ohio): Defended against infringement allegations related to usage-based insurance underwriting based on vehicle telematics data, and asserted patents related to processing and quoting of insurance policies.