Matthew I. Kreeger

Partner

San Francisco, (415) 268-6467

Download vCard

Education

University of California, Berkeley (A.B., 1987)
;
Harvard Law School (J.D., 1990)

Practices

Intellectual Property Litigation

Interferences

Patent Litigation

Bar Admissions

California
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Matt Kreeger is the Co-Chair of the firm's Patent Interferences Practice Group. Mr. Kreeger specializes in helping clients find efficient, creative, business-oriented solutions to high stakes intellectual property disputes. Mr. Kreeger also helps develop patent prosecution and reexamination strategies that protect his clients' patents and minimize the clients' risks.

After one of his clients was sued for patent infringement, Mr. Kreeger obtained an early summary judgment of non-infringement, ending the case before significant expense. In another case, he obtained a claim construction ruling that convinced the other party to settle on favorable terms.

Mr. Kreeger has served as lead or co-lead counsel in more than 15 patent interferences, including one ground-breaking interference confirming that the client was the first to invent a test to screen for HIV antibodies used in blood banks throughout the world.

Mr. Kreeger also has represented clients in disability access cases, including the National Federation of the Blind against Target Corp. case. In the Target case, which recently settled, the plaintiffs alleged that Target violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California state law by maintaining a web site that was not accessible to blind users.

Acacia Media Technologies Corp. v. Comcast Corp., et al.

(Northern District of California). Represented EchoStar, the owner of the DISH Network, in a closely watched patent infringement case involving a number of patents purportedly relating to digital media transmission. EchoStar was one of multiple defendants in this multi-district patent infringement action involving distributed audio/video information and whether major U.S. satellite and cable television providers infringe Acacia patents related to video-on-demand (streaming video) technology. We assumed a leadership position in developing the defenses against these patents, which, if afforded the broad construction assigned to them by the patentees, could have far-reaching effects on numerous forms of digital transmission used in many different industries. After multiple rounds of claim construction proceedings, defendants prevailed on summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of all patents, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2010.

Interval Licensing v. Yahoo! et al.

(Northern District of California). Currently representing Yahoo! in a patent infringement case brought against many defendants by a patent licensing company founded by Paul Allen. (Ongoing)

Media Queue v. Netflix et al.

(Northern District of California). Successfully obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for Netflix in a patent infringement case. Currently on appeal in Federal Circuit. (Ongoing)

Bronshtein v. Roser

(Patent Office). Settled on favorable terms after the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences gave a favorable ruling on an early preliminary motion in this interference relating to methods of forming stable foams to store biologically active materials. (2002)

Celltech v. Genentech

(Northern District of California). Successfully represented Celltech in the litigation over an appeal of a patent interference decision involving basic antibody expression patents resulting in a favorable settlement. (2001)

Chang v. Luciw

(Patent Office). Successfully argued, as co-lead counsel, the final hearing before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in a major interference involving a blood screening diagnostic for HIV. The PTO issued a 122-page opinion in the client’s favor. (2003)

Institut Pasteur v. Chiron

(District of the District of Columbia). Served as co-lead counsel in this trial and arbitration, resulting in a victory for client Chiron Corporation. (2006)

Chiron Corporation v. Genentech

(Eastern District of California). Successfully represented Chiron in a protracted dispute with Genentech over a method for inducing baker’s yeast to secrete human insulin-like growth factor. After a two-week court trial, and two appellate decisions, the Federal Circuit confirmed that Chiron inventors were entitled to priority. (2000)

Gregory v. Tsui

(Patent Office). Served as lead counsel before the Patent Office in this patent interference relating to cystic fibrosis regulatory protein, and successfully argued the appeal before the Federal Circuit. A PTO decision in the client’s favor was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit. (2002)

Novartis v. Institut Pasteur

(District of the District of Columbia). Currently serving as co-lead counsel for Novartis in related interferences involving nucleic acid tests for HIV. The cases are currently on appeal in D.C. District Court under 35 U.S.C. 146. (Ongoing)

Ruelle v. Scarlato

(Patent Office). Currently serving as lead counsel for Novartis in this interference involving antigens used in vaccines to protect against bacterial meningitis. (Ongoing)