Matt focuses his intellectual property practice on patent litigation, strategic IP counseling, and patent valuation. He has experience representing clients before the International Trade Commission (ITC), federal district courts, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Matt’s practice covers complex technologies such as microprocessors, graphics processors, RF circuitry, LCD display systems, microelectromechanical systems, audio and video processing, VLSI design, consumer telecommunications systems, and DDR-compliant memory modules and DRAM.

Matt has held lead roles in multiple ITC investigations, where he managed teams of technologists, coordinated complex discovery efforts, developed infringement, validity, and claim construction positions, deposed fact and expert witnesses, and participated in evidentiary hearings. Matt has served as liaison in German enforcement programs, where he worked closely with foreign counsel to develop strategies for infringement and nullity proceedings. Additionally, he has served as counsel and liaison in multiple inter partes review and post-grant proceedings, where he developed and coordinated validity positions for patents being simultaneously asserted in multiple jurisdictions.

Matt also advises clients in complex IP transactions and related diligence, which involves developing and negotiating multiparty agreements and performing extensive transactional diligence on large domestic and international IP portfolios. Matt provides portfolio management strategies for high-technology companies, including those with standard-essential technology in the memory, RF, and telecommunication spaces. In addition to his work with electronic device and software companies, Matt works with university technology transfer offices to provide strategic IP guidance on portfolio management and patent valuation.

Before joining Mintz, Matt was a technology consultant and application architect for a software company in the Boston area. His work focused on enterprise-level data management and software development. Before that, Matt conducted research at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, focusing on molten alloy composition detection via X-ray fluorescence.

RoadRunner Recycling, Inc. v. Recycle Track Systems, Inc. et al., 3:23-cv-04804 (N.D. Cal.) — Defended clients Recycle Track Systems and RecycleSmart Solutions against California Uniform Trade Secret Act (CUTSA) and Defend Trade Secret Act (DTSA) causes of action in the Northern District of California in a suit brought by competitor RoadRunner Recycling related to waste metering technology. Obtained full defense verdict via summary judgment with respect to all of RoadRunner’s trade secret allegations.
SRAM LLC v. Princeton CarbonWorks, Inc., 9:21-cv-80581-RKA (S.D. Fla.) — Represented defendant Princeton CarbonWorks (PCW) in bet-the-company litigation, achieving a complete jury trial victory in the Southern District of Florida. SRAM, the second-largest bicycle component manufacturer in the world, sued on two patents relating to high-end carbon fiber bike wheels and sought to put PCW out of business. After a two-week trial in February 2023, Mintz persuaded a nine-person jury to reach a defense verdict of no infringement on either patent, and no damages.

Netlist Inc. v. SK hynix Inc., et al. (CDCA 8:16-cv-01605; 8:17-cv-01030): Represented plaintiff Netlist, Inc., a California memory module company, in asserting eight patents against the Korean-based memory giant SK hynix. The technology claimed by the asserted patents is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM standards.
Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1044) – Represented Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) as complainant in the ITC asserting patents covering graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets. Respondents include LG Electronics, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs, Inc. (SDI). Achieved settlement with LG prior to the conclusion of expert discovery. Following the evidentiary hearing, the presiding ALJ issued an initial determination finding a violation of Section 337 and recommending the imposition of an exclusion order against the remaining Respondents’ accused products. The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s finding of a violation on August 22, 2018. As a result, the Commission issued orders banning the importation of products made by VIZIO, MediaTek, and SDI and cease and desist orders against VIZIO and SDI.
Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (337-TA-984) – Represented owner of portfolio of graphics processing and microprocessor patents, Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC, as Complainant in an ITC investigation adverse to a number of automotive manufacturers, and infotainment system and chip suppliers. Respondents include Honda, Toyota, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments, Renesas, Harman International, and Fujitsu-Ten. The investigation instituted in January of 2016 and resolved favorably prior to the conclusion of expert discovery in August of 2016.
Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884) - Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC. Investigation was instituted in June 2013 and among the respondent entities were Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, and ZTE. Most respondents settled. After an evidentiary hearing held over several days in May 2014, on August 29, 2014 Mintz successfully obtained a recommendation for a Limited Exclusion Order against the remaining respondent, which chose to settle while Commission review of the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination was pending.
Successful Defense of 12 IPRs – Three Dimensional Structure Memory: Mintz represented Elm 3DS Innovations in a series of 14 IPRs filed by leading technology companies, including SK Hynix, Micron, and Samsung. We were hired as replacement counsel following institution of the IPRs which had been filed in late 2015 and early 2016. Final Written decisions in the proceedings were received in June and August 2017 and confirmed validity of all but 2 of 107 challenged claims. PTAB's determination was upheld on appeal to the Federal Circuit. IPR2016-00386, IPR2016-00387, IPR2016-00388, IPR2016-00389, IPR2016-00390, IPR2016-00391, IPR2016-00393, IPR2016-00394, IPR2016-00395, IPR2016-00687, IPR2016-00691, IPR2016-00708, IPR2016-00770, IPR2016-00786

Read less

Return to Real (Pre-eBay) Injunctive Relief?

July 11, 2025 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Matthew Galica, Peter Snell, James Thomson

April 11, 2025 | Blog | By Matthew Hurley, Matthew Galica, Amanda Metell

Ericsson and Lenovo announced last week that they had entered into a global cross-licensing agreement involving 4G and 5G wireless technology patents.

June 7, 2024 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Matthew Galica, Sam Lyons

Last week, Sun Patent Trust sued Xiaomi in France for infringement of patents claimed to be essential to the LTE-Advanced standard. In its suit, Sun Patent Trust asked French courts to set a global FRAND rate—something that has never occurred before.

May 8, 2024 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Matthew Galica, James Thomson

To date, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has not held a trial involving standard-essential patents (SEPs). However, the new forum’s Mannheim Local Division has now authored its first SEP-specific order in a case between Panasonic and Xiaomi.

May 1, 2024 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Matthew Galica, James Thomson

On April 17, 2024, a second Texas jury assessed damages of $142 million against Samsung, more than doubling a previous jury award of $67.5 in a protracted standard essential patent (SEP) litigation brought by G+ Communications.

November 5, 2021 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Matthew Galica

December 7, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Matthew Galica

A Chinese Court recently decided that it has the willingness, and jurisdiction, to set a global licensing rate that is fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) for standard essential patents (“SEP”).

August 26, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Daniel Weinger, Matthew Galica

Another major development in global standard essential patent litigation was handed down today, as the UK Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that forced an efficient infringer of essential patents to accept a global license or face an injunction.

July 16, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Matthew Galica

Germany’s highest court has clearly and emphatically placed SEP implementers on notice that hold-out will not be tolerated, and that implementers must proactively share the burden and obligation to timely achieve a FRAND license. An infringer’s conduct during FRAND negotiations is decisively important, and an infringer’s failure to undertake its burden and satisfy its obligations will preclude it from claiming that the patentee acted anti-competitively, or abused a dominant market position.

May 12, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Matthew Galica

After its recent ruling in Sisvel’s favor, Germany’s highest court on patent matters is expected to issue a highly favorable and detailed decision for standard-essential patent (SEP) owners seeking to prevent patent “hold-out” by unwilling licensees.