Matthew Meyer is a registered patent attorney who focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, including patent litigation and commercial litigation concerning disputes over licensed technology. He has experience litigating across technologies, including chemistry, software, optics, biometrics, computer peripherals, and wireless communications.
Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Meyer was in-house at Logitech, a worldwide leader in computer peripherals, focusing on complex commercial and intellectual property disputes and litigation regarding Logitech's keyboards and mice, webcams, gaming peripherals, video conferencing solutions, universal remote control devices, and related technology. Outside of his practice, Mr. Meyer also develops 3D gaming applications for iOS and Android tablets and smartphone devices.
Mr. Meyer was recognized as a 2017 Northern California “Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine.
Represented DigitalPersona, Inc. in defense of a patent litigation lawsuit involving fingerprint biometric identity verification solutions. Blue Spike, LLC v. DigitalPersona, Inc., No. 12-0499 (E.D. Tex. filed Aug. 9, 2012).
Represented MEI 3D LLC, a subsidiary of Marchon Eyewear, in the enforcement of its patents directed to its passive 3D Eyewear technology. MEI 3D, LLC v. Gunnar Optiks LLC, No. 13-0215 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 15, 2013).
Represented Marchon Eyewear and its subsidiary in defense of a patent lawsuit involving premium computer gaming eyewear. Gunnar Optiks LLC v. Allure Eyewear LLC, et al., No. 13-1320 (S.D. Cal. filed June 6, 2013).
Defending Broadcom and its six downstream customers Technicolor, HTC, Comcast, Arista, NETGEAR, and ARRIS in patent infringement and importation investigation brought against them by Tessera Technologies, related to semiconductor chip packaging technology. Trial set for March 2017 before Administrative Law Judge Dee Sandra Lord, with related actions in D. Delaware and Europe. In re Certain Semiconductor Devices, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1010
As lead trial counsel to the inventor and patent owner, obtained a verdict of willful infringement and an award of $20.3 for past damages after a seven day jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas. The Court increased the award to $23.6 million after ruling on post-trial motions. The two related inter partes review hearings resulted in an exceedingly rare final determination upholding the patentability of all challenged claims.
Won summary judgment for Seattle Genetics in a technology licensing and breach of contract and patent dispute involving a life-saving cancer therapy. After years of litigation and arbitration in district courts, state courts and the American Arbitration Association in Arizona and Washington, Kilpatrick Townsend obtained a definitive victory on summary judgment for Seattle Genetics against Arizona State University in the District of Arizona. The Court held on August 4, 2015, that ASU’s patent infringement claims were barred by the written terms of a contract amendment it had executed with SeaGen over ten years ago. Arizona State University v. Seattle Genetics, (D. Ariz.).
Insights View All
University of California at Los Angeles, School of Law, J.D. (2010)
University of Nebraska, B.S., Biological Sciences (2004) with high distinction
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2016)
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.