“The ‘all-around excellent’ Matt Moore is an acclaimed practitioner, handling patent disputes, and is noted by interviewees as being a ‘particularly strategic’ attorney who ‘has a lot of vision when it comes to litigation strategy.’ He is also recognized for his ‘detail-oriented’ approach and ‘great presentation skills.’”Chambers USA 2017

Matthew J. Moore

Washington, D.C.
  • 555 Eleventh Street, NW
  • Suite 1000
  • Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
  • USA
 
 

Matthew Moore is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office and is a former Global Co-Chair of Latham & Watkins' Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. He provides strategic business counseling on intellectual property issues, and has extensive trial and appellate experience in patent, trade secret, antitrust, and false advertising cases. He has represented numerous Fortune 100 companies. He was also appointed liaison counsel by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of 270 defendants in the largest Multi-District Litigation (MDL) patent case in history, and obtained summary judgment of invalidity on 46 asserted claims. 

Prior to joining Latham, Mr. Moore was the manager of product development for software-related technologies at GE Aerospace. While working at GE, Mr. Moore also obtained his MS in Systems Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania and played professional lacrosse for the Philadelphia Wings.

Mr. Moore is regularly recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by The Legal 500, Chambers USA, IAM Patent 1000, and Managing Intellectual Property for Intellectual Property Litigation in the District of Columbia. The AmLaw Litigation Daily recognized him in April 2014 as Litigator of the Week for being the first to defeat Intellectual Ventures and stated that “Moore and his colleagues at Latham have a knack for invalidating patents on abstractness grounds.” In October 2014, The National Law Journal named Mr. Moore an Intellectual Property Trailblazer and Pioneer, noting “Moore was the first to use Section 101 of the US Patent Act to get cases dismissed.”

He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Wisconsin and the Eastern District of Michigan, and is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.

Mr. Moore's recent speaking engagements include: 

  • “Patent Litigation in the United States,” FCBA 2016 Global Series — Innovation, Intellectual Property, Trade: Finding a Clear Path, Paris, France, October 2016 
  • “Bridging the IP Gap Between the US, Europe and Asia — Trial Lawyers Panel,” FCBA Global Fellows Series, Washington, D.C., October 2016 
  • “Enforcement of Patent Judgments,” United States-China Intellectual Property Adjudication Conference, Beijing, China, May 2012 
  • “Automotive Legal and Compliance Share Forum,” Detroit Auto Show, January 2012 
  • “Joint Judicial Conference on Japan and US Intellectual Property Rights,” Tokyo, Japan, October 2011

Mr. Moore's representative experience includes:

  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corporation. Lead counsel for Capital One in a five patent infringement case brought by Intellectual Ventures in the Eastern District of Virginia. Successfully defeated all five patents, including two on summary judgment of invalidity. The district court decision was affirmed on appeal. Listen to the Federal Circuit appeal here
  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corporation. Lead counsel for Capital One when successfully defeating a five patent suit in the District of Maryland, obtaining affirmance on all patents at the Federal Circuit; and bringing the first ever antitrust counterclaims against a patent assertion entity. Listen to the Federal Circuit appeal here.
  • Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company. Lead counsel for Ford in a five patent infringement case brought by Paice relating to hybrid control systems in the District of Maryland. Successfully defeated two motions for a preliminary injunctions. Successfully won 20 appeals in the Federal Circuit.
  • Graff/Ross Holdings, LLP v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., a/k/a Freddie Mac. Lead counsel for Freddie Mac in a trilogy of patent cases filed in 2007, 2010, and 2011 related to electric bond auctions for fixed income instruments in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Obtained a judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims in all three cases, collectively 616 claims from three patents and affirmance on appeal. Listen to the Federal Circuit appeal here.
  • Lugus IP v. Volvo Car Corporation, et. al. Lead counsel for Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, Forbidden Fruit LLC, Prospect Hill LLC, and Gum Springs, LLC in a patent infringement case in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia related to child safety seats. Successfully transferred the Volvo defendants’ case to the US District Court for the District of New Jersey where the court granted summary judgment for Volvo across the board and awarded nearly US$1 million in attorney fees. The district court decision was affirmed on appeal. Listen to the Federal Circuit appeal here.
  • Telebuyer, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc et. al. Lead co-counsel for Amazon, an e-commerce company, in a seven-patent infringement case in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington in a suit brought by Telebuyer, a shell company for non-practicing entity Ronald A. Katz. The suit related to fundamental concepts inherent in modern e-commerce and accused numerous features used on the Amazon.com website, including the use of high resolution images, user-indicated areas of interest, and targeted follow-up communications. The court granted Amazon's motion for summary judgment on §101 grounds and invalidated all 32 asserted claims across all seven patents.
  • OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. Lead counsel for Amazon in a patent case related to automated pricing for goods sold online allegedly used by www.amazon.com in the Northern District of California. Obtained summary judgment of invalidity on all 62 asserted claims.
  • Vehicle Interface Technologies LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover North American LLC. Lead counsel for Jaguar Land Rover, an automobile manufacturer, in a patent infringement case before the US District Court for the District of Delaware, related to computer interfaces controlling vehicle subsystems. Following oral argument, successfully obtained a summary judgment of invalidity and the plaintiff was ordered to pay Jaguar’s attorney fees. The district court decision was affirmed on appeal. Listen to the Federal Circuit appeal here.
  • Bonutti Skeletal Innovations (Acacia) v. ConMed. Lead counsel for ConMed in a patent infringement case involving nine patents and ten accused products related to medical devices in the Middle District of Florida. Successfully ran the table on the claim construction issues on all nine patents to obtain a very favorable settlement shortly after the claim construction order issued. 
  • In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation: MDL 1816. Appointed as liaison counsel on behalf of 270 defendants by the Central District of California in the largest multi-district litigation patent case in history. Served as lead counsel for General Electric (GE), General Motors (GM), Ford, GMAC, Marriott, Hilton, WellPoint, Safeway, ConEd, Costco, Whirlpool, Sierra Pacific, DTE, and Morgan Stanley. Obtained summary judgment of invalidity on 46 asserted claims.* 
  • MHL Tek v. GM. Lead counsel for GM, Saturn, Ford, Volvo, Suzuki, Isuzu, and Jaguar Land Rover, et al. in a patent suit related to tire pressure monitor systems in the Eastern District of Texas. Obtained dismissal of two asserted patents based on a bench trial before Judge Ward on ownership, and obtained summary judgment of non-infringement as to the third patent. 
  • Audio MPEG, Inc., et al. v. SanDisk Corp., and SanDisk Corp. v. Audio MPEG Inc., et al. Lead counsel for Audio MPEG, U.S. Philips Corporation, France Telecom, Telediffusion de France, and Institut Für Rundfunktechnik GmbH in their dueling patent litigations related to the MPEG Audio Layer III (MP3) compression technology in the Eastern District of Virginia and Northern District of California, and in defense of antitrust allegations including refusal to deal and conspiracy to monopolize. Coordinated these cases with corresponding foreign litigations in Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Italy. Obtained a dismissal of SanDisk's case against Audio MPEG, et al. in the Northern District of California for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and obtained favorable settlement.* 
  • Kimberly-Clark v. Procter & Gamble. Represented Procter & Gamble in the "diaper wars" arbitration between Huggies and Pampers in defense of a patent infringement claim against Pampers diapers. The arbitration panel found the patent at issue invalid, and the panel's opinion was upheld on appeal.* 
  • SmithKline Beecham v. Watson Pharmaceuticals. Represented Watson Pharmaceuticals in a defense of copyright suit filed against its labeling for its generic version of Nicorette gum in the Southern District of New York; district court refused to enjoin Watson from selling its generic version of Nicorette gum, and in an expedited appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed and dismissed for failure to state a claim.* 
  • Verizon California Inc. v. Ronald Katz Tech. Represented accused infringer Verizon California regarding a large patent portfolio related to interactive voice response systems in the Central District of California; obtained a summary judgment regarding 12 of the 16 representative claims and partial summary judgment on the remaining four claims; obtained a favorable settlement while a second summary judgment motion was pending.* 

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham 

 
 
 
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.