Matthew I. Kreeger

Partner | San Francisco

mkreeger@mofo.com | (415) 268-6467

mkreeger@mofo.com
(415) 268-6467

I help clients find efficient, creative, business-oriented solutions to high-stakes intellectual property disputes.

Matt has over two decades of experience representing clients in intellectual property cases. He has represented numerous clients in the pharmaceutical, biotech and medical device industries, in cases involving technologies such as antibody therapeutics and diagnostics, nucleic acid testing, vaccines, and small molecules. Matt also works for clients in information technology, leveraging his software experience. 

In one case for a computer networking company, Matt persuaded the court to issue an early favorable claim construction for an encryption patent, resulting in summary judgment in the client’s favor. In another case involving hybridization assays, Matt was part of the trial team in a successful arbitration establishing infringement of the client’s patent. 

Matt is a member of MoFo’s PTAB Litigation Group, representing clients in inter partes review, post-grant review, covered business method and derivation proceedings under the America Invents Act. Matt has served as lead counsel on more than forty such proceedings. In one case for an early stage medical device client, Matt filed an inter partes review petition that persuaded the opposing party to license the patent on favorable terms. 

In addition, Matt has served as lead or co-lead counsel in more than twenty 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.

Matt 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.

Show More

Experience

  • (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.

  • (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.

  • (Northern District of California). Obtained summary judgment in Genentech’s favor in case involving patent directed to breast cancer treatments.

  • (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.

  • (Northern District of California). Representing Yahoo! in a patent infringement case brought by patent licensing company founded by Paul Allen.

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

  • (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.

  • (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.

  • (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.

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

  • (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.

  • (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.

  • (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.

  • (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.

Show More
Close

Feedback

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.