Matthew Meyer is a registered patent attorney with extensive experience in patent litigation matters, including ITC Section 337 investigations, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, and Federal Circuit appeals. His practice spans a wide range of technologies, including chemistry, software, optics, biometrics, computer peripherals, wireless communications, and advanced display systems. Mr. Meyer is recognized for his strategic counsel in high-stakes intellectual property disputes.
In recent years, Mr. Meyer has developed a robust practice representing both complainants and respondents in Section 337 investigations before the International Trade Commission (ITC). He has served as technical lead and lead associate on domestic industry issues in complex cases, managed infringement and validity contentions, expert depositions, and direct examinations at trial. Additionally, he has successfully represented both petitioners and patent owners in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, including arguing before the PTAB, and prevailing on appeal at the Federal Circuit.
Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Meyer served as in-house counsel at Logitech, a global leader in computer peripherals, where he focused on complex commercial and intellectual property disputes involving Logitech’s innovative products, including keyboards, mice, webcams, gaming peripherals, video conferencing solutions, and universal remote control devices. Outside of his legal practice, Mr. Meyer also develops 3D gaming applications.
Mr. Meyer was recognized in 2025 as one of the "Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch" for Intellectual Property Law and Patent Litigation by The Best Lawyers in America®. He was recognized as a Northern California “Rising Star” in 2022 and the five years immediately preceding for Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine.
Experience
Represented adidas AG, adidas North America, Inc., adidas America, Inc., and adidas International Trading AG in patent infringement and importation investigation at ITC brought by Nike, Inc., related to the design and manufacture of shoe uppers for knitted footwear, with related action in Oregon federal court. One of the largest patent cases in the footwear industry, the case involved nine U.S. patents from multiple distinct families of patents, each covering a different subject matter. After completing both fact and expert discovery, the case was settled on confidential terms shortly before the evidentiary hearing at the ITC. In re Certain Knitted Footwear, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1289; Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG et al., No. 3:21-cv-01780 (D. Or.)
Represented Manufacturing Resources International (MRI), the leading U.S. manufacturer of outdoor LCD displays, in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving thermal management systems for electronic displays. Mr. Meyer served as the lead associate on domestic industry issues. The ITC’s Initial Determination found that Samsung had not satisfied the domestic industry requirement for any of the asserted patents. The Initial Determination thereby found that MRI had not violated Section 337. In re Components for Certain Environmentally-Protected LCD Digital Displays and Products Containing Same, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1349.
Lead drafter of a successful IPR petition and subsequent appellee brief at the Federal Circuit. This representation resulted in the invalidation of all asserted claims in a related district court action and culminated in a precedential Federal Circuit decision. IPR2019-01659 (PTAB) / Elekta Ltd. v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., 81 F. 4th 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Represented MRI as complainant in an ITC Section 337 investigation brought against Samsung. Mr. Meyer served as technical lead for two asserted patents involving electronic displays, including conducting the direct examinations of the expert witness as to infringement and invalidity at trial. The case settled favorably. Certain Outdoor and Semi-Outdoor Electronic Displays, Products Containing Same, and Components Thereof, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1331.
Defended 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. In re Certain Semiconductor Devices, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1010.
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).
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 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
California (2012)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2018)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2016)
San Francisco Intellectual Property Law Association (SFIPLA), Member
Disclaimer
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.
