Matthew protects his life sciences and high-tech clients’ intellectual property and defends his clients wrongly accused of infringement. His hearing and trial experience is extensive. Although his practice focuses on intellectual property litigation in federal and state courts, he also regularly advises clients on plant and agriculture intellectual property matters, including strategic use of plant patents, plant-variety protection certificates, and trademark rights. Matthew also has represented life sciences clients in drug-pricing and False Claims Act cases and pro bono clients in civil rights cases.
Matthew has litigated patent matters in many of the top patent venues throughout the U.S., including the Northern and Central Districts of California, Eastern District of Texas, District of Delaware, District of New Jersey, Federal Circuit, and the International Trade Commission. He routinely argues motions and examines fact and expert witnesses, and has given closing arguments in federal court. Matthew has also litigated a number of state court matters, and is familiar with California’s complex case litigation procedures. His considerable experience includes practicing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, especially in patent reexamination and inter partes review proceedings. Matthew has been named a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers each year from 2014 through 2019.
Life sciences clients often rely on Matthew’s deep technical experience and his ability to grasp complex and cutting-edge issues quickly. His work in this area has included litigation, pre-litigation, and inter partes review proceedings involving monoclonal antibodies, protein conjugates, vaccines, bioabsorbable implants, drug-eluting stents, blood glucose monitoring devices, plant genetics, and animal husbandry. He knows the ins and outs of the “patent dance” in Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) proceedings, and has advised clients on successful strategies for engaging in multi-phased BPCIA litigation.
Matthew’s practice is not limited to the life sciences. He has litigated cases involving internet firewalls, network security, virtualization, smartphone, interactive television, website, and display technologies.
Before law school, Matthew received a degree in molecular biology from the University of Wyoming. While there, he performed research funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy in computer science, bioinformatics, and cell metabolism.
Driscoll’s, Inc. v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC(Eastern District of California)Counsel for Driscoll’s in dispute regarding strawberry breeding and plant patent rights.
Bayer CropScience LP v. Tenfold Tech., LLC(Eastern District of Texas)Counsel for Bayer in trade secret misappropriation case involving biofungicide products.
The Regents of the University of California v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC (California Superior Court and Northern District of California)Trial counsel for the University of California in dispute regarding strawberry breeding and plant patent rights. Obtained jury verdict in client's favor of conversion and patent infringement by defendants.
Arch Development Corp. v. Genentech, Inc. (Northern District of Illinois, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and Federal Circuit)Representing Genentech in district court and inter partes review proceedings involving patent directed to tyrosine kinase inhibitor combination therapies. Affirmed on appeal.
Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (Northern District of California and Federal Circuit)Obtained summary judgment of non–infringement and fee award for Genentech in a case involving patent directed to breast cancer treatments. Currently pending on appeal.
Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Northern District of California and Patent Trial and Appeal Board) Representing Palo Alto Networks in a 10–patent suit involving network security technology.
Media Queue, L.L.C. v. Netflix, Inc.(Northern District of California and Federal Circuit)Secured early summary judgment for Netflix in a case involving patent on queue–management features.
Waugh v. Doyle, (Northern District of California)Represented plaintiff in civil rights lawsuit. Court entered substantial monetary judgment in plaintiff’s favor prior to trial.
Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C. v. EchoStar Corp. and DISH Network Corp. (Eastern District of Texas and Federal Circuit)Represented EchoStar and DISH in case involving analog and digital television technology. The case settled on favorable terms after plaintiff failed to get evidence excluded with pretrial motions.
Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. and ImmunoGen, Inc. (Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Federal Circuit)Represented Genentech in defending validity of patents protecting one of Genentech’s blockbuster breast cancer therapeutics. The Board declined to grant review on one patent after preliminary response was filed. The Board later issued a Final Written Decision rejecting petitioner’s grounds for unpatentability on the other. Phigenix's appeal to the Federal Circuit was dismissed for lack of standing.
Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc. (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)Represented Focal in review of patented methods relating to the treatment of breast cancer. The case settled on favorable terms.
California Strawberry Commission v. The Regents of the University of California (California Superior Court and Northern District of California)Represented the University of California in case involving research agreements for the breeding and development of strawberry cultivars. Removed to federal court under the AIA on the basis of patent infringement counterclaims. Case settled on favorable terms following removal.
Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, L.P. v. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (Northern and Central Districts of California)Represented EchoStar in multidistrict litigation involving interactive voice response patents. Most of the claims asserted against EchoStar were found invalid or not–infringed on summary judgment. Case settled after summary judgment on favorable terms.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (District of Delaware, Northern District of California, and Patent Trial and Appeal Board) Represented Palo Alto Networks in patent suits and inter partes review proceedings involving network firewall and router technology. Secured a mistrial in our client’s favor in Delaware. The cases settled after trial on favorable terms.
Williams v. Williams (Northern District of California)Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in civil rights lawsuit. The case settled following appellate proceeding.
In re Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (International Trade Commission)Represented Immersion in asserting patents covering haptic technologies against Motorola and HTC. The case settled on favorable terms.
Enriquez v. City of Fresno (Eastern District of California)Represented plaintiff in civil rights case where jury found Fresno liable for wrongful death. The case settled on favorable terms following jury verdict.
Northpoint Tech., Ltd. v. EchoStar Tech. L.L.C. and DISH Network L.L.C. (Western District of Texas and Federal Circuit) Secured summary judgment for EchoStar and DISH in case involving satellite television reception equipment. Affirmed on appeal.
Soverain Software, Inc. v. Shutterfly, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas) Represented Shutterfly in infringement suit involving e–commerce patents. The case settled on favorable terms.
Hitachi Plasma Patent Licensing Co., Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas) Represented HPPL in asserting patents relating to plasma display panel technology. The case settled on favorable terms.
Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.