Contact Information

Connect on Social

Admissions

California, 2009

District of Columbia, 2006

Maryland, 1997

Admitted to practice before: 

  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 2001
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of California

Credentials

  • J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1997
  • B.Eng. (Polymer Engineering), Stevens Institute of Technology, 1994
    • with high honors

Matthew Blackburn is an accomplished trial and intellectual property lawyer who guides clients through important litigation before federal and state courts across the country. Matt has helped clients resolve litigation involving a variety of challenging areas, with an emphasis on all types of IP litigation, licensing disputes, unfair competition claims, and other complex business litigation.

With clients ranging from privately held businesses and startups to global Fortune 500 corporations, Matt has asserted and defended complex patent infringement claims involving diverse products and technologies, including medical devices, pharmaceuticals, electronics, software, and many others. A registered patent lawyer, Matt also is an experienced first chair inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) litigator. Matt has a superb record of defending patent owners against patent challenges brought before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB), where he has repeatedly defeated challenges at the institution stage. Clients also rely on Matt in unfair competition and infringement litigation relating to trademark, trade secret, and copyright assets.

In addition to his litigation experience, clients seek Matt’s advice on a broad range of legal issues relating to their IP assets, including analysis of competitor IP with regard to validity, infringement, and freedom-to-operate issues; development of forward-looking licensing strategies; and monitoring IP contract compliance.

As a respected IP thought leader, Matt has been called upon to provide expert testimony in international arbitration and foreign court proceedings. In addition, Matt regularly speaks at conferences on topics related to patent litigation. He also frequently publishes in the field. Matt has been an active member of the American Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Section and currently serves as a section council member.

Representative Matters

Any result the lawyer or law firm may have achieved on behalf of clients in other matters does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients

  • Liqwd & Olaplex v. L'Oreal USA, 17-cv-14 (D. Del.) - Trial counsel for plaintiff in patent, trade secret and breach of contract action; favorable claim construction led to summary judgment and trial verdict totaling $91.3M.
  • Aurora BioPharma v. Baylor Col. of Med., 2018-69220 (Harris Cty., Tex) - Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in licensing dispute about cancer immunotherapy.
  • L'Oreal USA v. Liqwd, PGR2017-00011, -00012, & PGR2018-00023, -00024, -00025 - Successfully defended two consumer product patents in PTAB.
  • Aftermarket Auto Parts Alliance v. NCH, DC-17-11686 (Dallas Cty., Tex) - Lead trial counsel for marketing group in breach of trademark contract.
  • Phosphagenics v. Mylan, SIAC Nos. ARB001/16/KRW & ARB002/16/KRW - Expert witness; international arbitration about pharmaceutical IP.
  • Merial v. Intervet, VID399/201 - Patent law expert in Australian litigation about pharmaceutical research.
  • Mellanox v. Methode Elecs., 4:15-cv-3730 (N.D.Cal) - Defended patent action on electronic connectors.
  • Bluestone Innovations v. Feit Elec., 3:15-cv-05479 (N.D.Cal) - Defended LED patent action.
  • Genentech v. Apotex, 3:11-cv-2410 (N.D.Cal) - Hatch-Waxman litigation for transplant drug VALCYTE.
  • AGA Medical v. WL Gore, 0:10-cv-3734 (D.Minn) - Lead counsel; favorable claim construction led to summary judgment of no infringement.
  • Ledergerber v. WL Gore, 1:07-cv-1593 (N.D.Ill) - Summary judgment of patent invalidity.
  • Edwards v. WL Gore, 03-cv-3817 (N.D.Cal) - Summary judgment of no infringement on four patents.

Professional & Civic Engagement

  • American Bar Association, IP Law Section, Council Member

Thought Leadership

  • Quoted, "Patent Cases To Watch In The Second Half Of 2024," Law360, July 11, 2024
  • Author, "Are Your Patent Agent Communications Privileged?" Law360, December 15, 2015
  • Author, "After Lexmark, Is International Patent Exhaustion on the Horizon?" Bloomberg Law (BNA), June 23, 2015
  • Author, "Follow-On IPRs Offer Ammunition for Invalidating Patent Claims," The Recorder, May 25, 2015
  • Co-presenter, "Litigating Complex Cross-Border Disputes," Montreux, Switzerland
  • Co-presenter, "Adapting to the New Landscape of Patent Subject Matter, Indefiniteness, Exceptional Case Fees, and Claim Construction," Prosecutor & Litigator Roundtable, American Conference Institute, March 4, 2015
     

Profile insights