Matt Kreeger is a partner in the firm’s Litigation and Intellectual Property Groups. Mr. Kreeger specializes in helping clients find efficient, creative, business-oriented solutions to high stakes intellectual property disputes.
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. He has litigated dozens of patent infringement cases.
Mr. Kreeger also represents clients in inter partes review and post-grant review procedures instituted by the America Invents Act. In addition, 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 has more than ten years of experience as a consultant in software design and development. He has programmed in C, C++, Pascal, and assembly language, and has developed data analysis and instrument control programs for chemical instrumentation companies.
Mr. Kreeger received his A.B. degree in mathematics, with highest distinction, from the University of California at Berkeley, and received his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard University. Following graduation, Mr. Kreeger served as a law clerk to the Honorable Judith Rogers, District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
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 noninfringement and invalidity of all patents, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2010.
Arch Development Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.(Northern District of Illinois). Representing Genentech in district court and inter partes review proceedings involving patent directed to tyrosine kinase inhibitor combination therapies. All claims of Arch’s patent were found unpatentable in the inter partes review proceedings.
Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.(Northern District of California). Obtained summary judgment in Genentech’s favor in case involving patent directed to breast cancer treatments.
Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. and ImmunoGen, Inc. (Patent Trial and Appeal Board). Represented Genentech in defending validity of patents protecting one of Genentech’s blockbuster breast cancer therapeutics. Board declined to grant review on one patent after preliminary response was filed. Board later issued a Final Written Decision rejecting petitioner’s grounds for unpatentability on the other.
Interval Licensing v. Yahoo! et al.(Northern District of California). Representing Yahoo! in a patent infringement case brought by patent licensing company founded by Paul Allen.
Media Queue v. Netflix et al.(Northern District of California). Successfully obtained summary judgment of noninfringement for Netflix in a patent infringement case. Currently on appeal in Federal Circuit.
Bronshtein v. Roser(U.S. Patent and Trademark 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.
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.
Chang v. Luciw(U.S. Patent and Trademark 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 USPTO issued a 122-page opinion in the client’s favor.
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.
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.
Gregory v. Tsui(U.S. Patent and Trademark Office). Served as lead counsel before the USPTO in this patent interference relating to cystic fibrosis regulatory protein, and successfully argued the appeal before the Federal Circuit. A USPTO decision in the client’s favor was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
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.
Ruelle v. Scarlato(U.S. Patent and Trademark Office). Currently serving as lead counsel for Novartis in this interference involving antigens used in vaccines to protect against bacterial meningitis.
©1996-2018 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.