Skip to main content

Matthew S. Galica

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.4859

Share:

Matthew’s work is focused on enterprise-level data management and software development. He has worked with clients including Fresenius Medical Care, Raytheon, Bose, Jabil Circuits, and CAT Global Mining.

Before joining Mintz, Matthew was a technology consultant and application architect for a technology corporation in the Boston area. There, he configured and implemented software and worked with product and business development teams. He has previously worked as an intern with a power company, where his efforts were focused on the use of alternative fuel sources, and also with Worcester Polytechnic Institute, where he performed research surrounding molten alloy composition detection via x-ray fluorescence.

Education

  • Suffolk University Law School (JD)
  • Boston University (BS, Mechanical Engineering)

Experience

  • Successful Defense of 12 IPRs – Three Dimensional Structure Memory Mintz Levin is representing 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. 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

Viewpoints

Viewpoint
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director, Andrei Iancu, recently gave a speech to the American Intellectual Property Law Association where he discussed a new rule proposal aimed at improving the patent amendment process during post-grant proceedings.  Specifically, he informed the audience—and patent practitioners, generally—that the USPTO “will formally publish a notice seeking comments on a new claim amendment process for post grant proceedings.”  The stated purpose of the proposed rule change is to “ensure balance” in post-grant proceedings by making the amendment process “feasible and meaningful” for the owners of challenged patents.  
A recent International Trade Commission decision, Vacuum Cleaning Devices, improves a patent owner’s ability to demonstrate that it possesses a statutorily required “domestic industry” and can therefore obtain relief from the Commission when others infringe its intellectual property. This alert reviews the Vacuum Cleaning Devices ruling, which serves to better align the statutory purpose of the ITC’s domestic industry requirement with contemporary business practices.
A recent decision by the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) improves intellectual property holders’ ability to prove that they have a “domestic industry” and obtain relief for infringement from the Commission. 
Earlier this week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a new rule governing when privilege exists for communications between clients and their domestic or foreign patent attorneys and patent agents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aqua Products Inc., v. Matal materially changes the burden of proof associated with the patentability of amended claims during an inter partes review (“IPR”), shifting the burden from the Patent Owner seeking the amendment to the IPR Petitioner opposing it.
Several recent court decisions have shed light on the patent agent privilege, and now the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking to weigh-in on the issue.
As a patent owner involved in patent litigation, you must consider numerous factors when negotiating a settlement agreement. An important contemplation is timing, because finalizing a settlement agreement at the wrong juncture of your legal proceedings can have devastating results.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated as precedential its decision in Westlake Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00176, Paper 28 (PTAB May 14, 2015)  addressing the scope of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e).