Matt Wolf is co-chair of the firm's Intellectual Property practice group. He is also a member of the Litigation practice group and has been lead trial counsel in some of the most significant cases brought by and against global technology companies. His professional activities focus on patent, trade secret, licensing, and business tort issues, particularly involving medical and biomedical technologies and computer hardware, software, and networking. While much of Mr. Wolf's practice is in federal trial courts throughout the United States, he also has extensive arbitration, appellate, and counseling/diligence experience.
Mr. Wolf has been recognized as a "key individual" for his achievements in patent litigation in Chambers USA. He also is top ranked by IAM's Patent Litigation 1000: The World's Leading Patent Litigators, which has noted that he is a "trial supremo"; a "smart guy who knows how to frame the best case," with "tremendous trial skills and a superb ability to think on his feet," and "his cross-examination skills are some of the best." Prior to attending the University of Virginia School of Law, Mr. Wolf was World University Debate Champion in 1990.
- Amgen v. Sanofi/Regeneron. Successfully invalidated Amgen's patents, preserving Sanofi and Regeneron's ability to continue to market its life-saving cholesterol-reducing drug Praluent. The case involved important issues relating to antibody patents and its outcome is likely to have an impact on companies developing therapeutic antibodies.
- Boston Scientific v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. Obtained $35-million jury verdict in a patent litigation matter involving transcatheter aortic valves while obtaining a complete defense verdict on patent counterclaims; followed by a $180-million global settlement agreement.
- Hologic and Grifols. Securing a complete jury verdict in defending against a $90-million patent claim brought by medical diagnostics company bioMerieux involving HIV-1 detection technology.
- Hologic Inc. v. Fujifilm. Secured a complete win and limited exclusion order in the ITC in investigation of a 4 patent infringement complaint involving mammography imaging technology.
- Drug-Coated Stent Wars: JNJ/Wyeth v. Boston Scientific (1) – invalidated all four patents-in-suit in a multibillion dollar dispute over market leading drug-coated stents; JNJ/Wyeth v. Boston Scientific (2) – invalidated both patents-in-suit concerning purportedly pioneering anti-proliferative drug; and JNJ v. Boston Scientific. Secured finding of non-infringement in multi-patent suit involving stent architecture.
- Jang v. Boston Scientific. Obtained jury verdict defeating license breach and infringement claims for US$200 million in medical device dispute.
- RGIS v. WIS. In litigation between primary competitors in retail audit space, secured invalidation of all hardware and software claims in district court and CBM proceedings.
- Hologic v. IZI. Obtained infringement verdict and subsequent permanent injunction in suit involving accessories for mammography units.
- Enzo v. GE/Amersham. Summary judgment in a decade-long biotech patent and licensing dispute.
- Inflow v. Boston Scientific Corp. Won complete defense victory against an infringement claim for $105 million involving medical device architecture patents.
- Freedom Wireless, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless. Represented only victorious defendant in multi-defendant suit involving patents on telecommunications systems and equipment.
- Boston Scientific v. Cook/Guidant. Secured permanent injunction valued at $5 billion precluding early entry into drug eluting stent market.
- Boston Scientific v. Medtronic. Won judgment in excess of $160 million and secured injunction against future infringing sales of catheter systems.
- Judicial Comment. Hon T. John Ward (ED Tex.) to the jury in Medtronic v. Boston Scientific (opposing counsel McKool Smith): "You've had an unusual experience in my nine years on the bench. I have never seen a case better tried by either side. So, the lawyers are to be complimented for the way they conducted themselves."
- Judicial Comment. Hon. Ronald M. Whyte (ND Cal.) to parties in Hologic v. SenoRx (opposing counsel Williams & Connolly): "I've tried a number of patent cases and this was a real pleasure. I thought this was the most professionally handled case from both sides that I've seen and it sure made it a lot easier for me, and I appreciate it."
Trailblazer: Intellectual Property (2018)
"Life Sciences Star" – Patent Strategy & Management (2017-2019)
"Life Sciences Star" – Intellectual Property (2013-2016)
- JD, University of Virginia School of Law, 1994
- BA, Political Science, Yale University, 1990
- District of Columbia
- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- US District Court, District of Maryland
- US District Court, Eastern District of Texas