Matthew M. D'Amore

Matthew M. D'Amore

Partner

New York, (212) 468-8168

Education

Cornell University (B.S., 1991)
Yale Law School (J.D., 1994)

Bar Admissions

New York
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Clerkships

Hon. Charles P. Sifton, U.S. District Court, E.D. New York (1994-1995)

Matthew D’Amore is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group and a member of the firm’s Life Sciences Practice Group. Mr. D’Amore advises and represents life sciences clients in resolution of complex IP disputes, including Hatch-Waxman litigation, inter partes review proceedings, and patent licensing. Additionally, he has represented clients in patent litigations involving medical devices, biotechnology, Internet technology, software design, interactive television, electronics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and financial services.

Mr. D’Amore has taken cases from pre-complaint investigation to trials and appeals. He has litigated matters across the United States, before the U.S. International Trade Commission, and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is also admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In addition, Mr. D’Amore has an active pro bono practice, representing children denied special education services or illegally discharged from school. He has contributed to published scientific articles in molecular biology and national environmental policy and has also contributed to the Encyclopedia of the Environment.

He received his B.S., with distinction, in biology and society from the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and he received his J.D. from Yale Law School. Before joining Morrison & Foerster, he served a one-year term as law clerk to the Honorable Charles P. Sifton, then chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

From 2007 to 2013, Mr. D’Amore served as an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School, teaching pretrial litigation and strategy.

Hatch-Waxman Litigation
(District of Delaware, Southern District of New York, and District of New Jersey; Federal Circuit). Mr. D’Amore has participated in more than a dozen Hatch-Waxman cases, including:
  • Hospira, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.: Represented Sandoz in bench trial, appeal, and subsequent FDA litigation relating to dexmedetomidine hydrochloride injection.
     
  • Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Sandoz Inc.: Represented Sandoz in bench trial relating to oxycodone extended-release tablets.
     
  • Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.: Represented Sandoz in bench trial and appeal relating to azithromycin ophthalmic topical solution.
Becton Dickinson & Co., Inc., et al. v. Omron Healthcare, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Defended Omron Healthcare in a patent case involving infrared ear thermometers, obtaining a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, which led to a settlement shortly thereafter.
Weisman v. Omron Healthcare, Inc.
(Northern District of Illinois). Defended Omron Healthcare in a patent case relating to electronic blood pressure monitors, securing a favorable judgment after a bench trial on Omron’s defense of laches.
Anvik v. Nikon
(Southern District of New York). Represented Nikon against patent infringement claims regarding microlithography machines used in fabrication of consumer electronic devices.
Metris U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Faro Technologies Inc.
(District of Massachusetts/Federal Circuit). Represented Nikon Metrology in a weeklong bench trial and a two-week jury trial in a patent case involving laser line scanner and articulated arm metrology solutions.
Korszun v. Public Technologies Multimedia
(District of Connecticut, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Represented PTM, Mattel, Lands’ End, and J.C. Penney in defense of a software patent case, securing summary judgment of non-infringement, and briefed and argued the appeal, resulting in summary affirmance of the judgment.
Software A.G., et al. v. BEA Software, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Represented BEA Systems in multi-office and multi-jurisdictional efforts against Software A.G., including the defense of an action for patent infringement in the District of Delaware, the assertion of infringement claims against Software A.G. in the Northern District of Virginia, and the initiation of reexamination proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, leading to a settlement of all litigation on the eve of trial.
D.S., et al. v. New York City Dept. of Ed., et al.
(Eastern District of New York). Represented a class of students improperly placed on shortened schedules or illegally discharged from a public high school in Brooklyn; achieved a settlement involving injunctive relief, compensatory education, and ongoing monitoring.
Ruiz v. Pedota, et al.
(Eastern District of New York). Represented (with Advocates for Children) a class of students illegally discharged or transferred from a public high school in Brooklyn; achieved a comprehensive settlement requiring notice to thousands of students and procedures to allow them to return to school.
Hatch-Waxman Litigation
(District of Delaware, Southern District of New York, and District of New Jersey; Federal Circuit). Mr. D’Amore has participated in more than a dozen Hatch-Waxman cases, including:
  • Hospira, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.: Represented Sandoz in bench trial, appeal, and subsequent FDA litigation relating to dexmedetomidine hydrochloride injection.
     
  • Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Sandoz Inc.: Represented Sandoz in bench trial relating to oxycodone extended-release tablets.
     
  • Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.: Represented Sandoz in bench trial and appeal relating to azithromycin ophthalmic topical solution.
Becton Dickinson & Co., Inc., et al. v. Omron Healthcare, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Defended Omron Healthcare in a patent case involving infrared ear thermometers, obtaining a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, which led to a settlement shortly thereafter.
Weisman v. Omron Healthcare, Inc.
(Northern District of Illinois). Defended Omron Healthcare in a patent case relating to electronic blood pressure monitors, securing a favorable judgment after a bench trial on Omron’s defense of laches.
Anvik v. Nikon
(Southern District of New York). Represented Nikon against patent infringement claims regarding microlithography machines used in fabrication of consumer electronic devices.
Metris U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Faro Technologies Inc.
(District of Massachusetts/Federal Circuit). Represented Nikon Metrology in a weeklong bench trial and a two-week jury trial in a patent case involving laser line scanner and articulated arm metrology solutions.
Korszun v. Public Technologies Multimedia
(District of Connecticut, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Represented PTM, Mattel, Lands’ End, and J.C. Penney in defense of a software patent case, securing summary judgment of non-infringement, and briefed and argued the appeal, resulting in summary affirmance of the judgment.
Software A.G., et al. v. BEA Software, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Represented BEA Systems in multi-office and multi-jurisdictional efforts against Software A.G., including the defense of an action for patent infringement in the District of Delaware, the assertion of infringement claims against Software A.G. in the Northern District of Virginia, and the initiation of reexamination proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, leading to a settlement of all litigation on the eve of trial.
D.S., et al. v. New York City Dept. of Ed., et al.
(Eastern District of New York). Represented a class of students improperly placed on shortened schedules or illegally discharged from a public high school in Brooklyn; achieved a settlement involving injunctive relief, compensatory education, and ongoing monitoring.
Ruiz v. Pedota, et al.
(Eastern District of New York). Represented (with Advocates for Children) a class of students illegally discharged or transferred from a public high school in Brooklyn; achieved a comprehensive settlement requiring notice to thousands of students and procedures to allow them to return to school.

Email Disclaimer

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.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.