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 has been named both a Winning Litigator and Trailblazer by The National Law Journal.  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.

Experience

  • Amgen v. Sanofi/Regeneron. Successfully invalidated Amgen's patents in jury trial, and subsequently secured affirmance by the Federal Circuit, preserving Sanofi and Regeneron's ability to continue to market its life-saving cholesterol-reducing drug Praluent.
  • Boston Scientific v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. Obtained jury verdict for Boston Scientific worth $100m+ in a patent litigation matter involving transcatheter aortic valves, while also obtaining a complete defense verdict on asserted patent counterclaims.
  • BioMerieux v. Hologic/Grifols. Secured a complete jury verdict in defending against a $100m patent claim involving HIV-1 detection technology.
  • Hologic 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. In a series of multibillion dollar, multijurisdictional disputes over market leading drug-coated stents, secured total victory for Boston Scientific: (1) JNJ/Wyeth v. Boston Scientific—in case related to drug carriers, invalidated all four patents-in-suit; (2) JNJ/Wyeth v. Boston Scientific—in case involving anti-proliferative drug, invalidated both patents-in-suit; and (3) JNJ v. Boston Scientific—in case involving stent architecture, secured non-infringement judgment.
  • Jang v. Boston Scientific. Obtained jury verdict defeating license breach and infringement claims for $200m 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 $105m 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 $160m 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."

Perspectives

What's Next for Genus Claims?
Panelist, World IP Review, Newton Media
Recent Developments in the Application of Section 112 to Genus Claims
Panelist, The 2021 Bench & Bar Virtual Conference, Federal Circuit Bar Association
How not to be an enabler: The implications of Amgen v. Sanofi and Regeneron for antibody claims and beyond
Speaker, New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association (NJIPLA)
“Assignor Estoppel” at the US Supreme Court: Stare Decisis or Doctrinal Dinosaur?—Featuring Matt Wolf
Podcast: TMT Time

Recognition

Chambers USA
Intellectual Property: Litigation (DC) (2011-2021)
Chambers Global
Intellectual Property: Patent (USA) (2021)
The National Law Journal
Winning Litigators (2019)
Trailblazer: Intellectual Property (2018)
More

Credentials

Education
  • JD, University of Virginia School of Law, 1994
  • BA, Political Science, Yale University, 1990
Admissions
  • District of Columbia
  • Maryland
  • 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
  • Supreme Court of the United States
Overview

Email Disclaimer