Matthew M. Zuziak

My focus

I am a patent litigator with extensive experience representing clients in federal district courts and before the US International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). My practice focuses on managing all stages of district court litigations—from pre-suit investigations to post-trial briefings and appeals—representing both patent owners and accused infringers. I have experience briefing and arguing motions in court, managing all aspects of fact and expert discovery, taking and defending depositions, and examining expert and fact witnesses at trial in both first- and second-chair roles.

I have litigated patents on a wide variety of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, DNA sequencing and cancer detection, automotive components, and industrial food processing. I also have experience litigating cases involving claims of trade secret misappropriation, trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and breach of contract and have served as trial counsel in multiple jury and bench trials.

Representative experience

• TwinStrand Biosciences et al. v. Guardant Health (D. Del.) (counsel for plaintiffs in a patent infringement suit involving DNA sequencing technology used for cancer detection. Served as the lead associate managing a large litigation team (15 members) from the pre-suit investigation stage through trial and post-trial briefing; prevailed on all claims at trial and obtained a jury verdict of $83.4 million past damages award for defendant’s willful patent infringement)
• Liu Jo S.p.A v. Kendall Jenner et al. (S.D.N.Y) (counsel for Liu Jo in a widely publicized breach of contract and unjust enrichment action; prevailed in a multi-year battle over jurisdiction and assisted in settling the dispute)
• Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi AG v. Varona et al. (S.D. Fl.) (co-lead trial counsel for Volkswagen and Audi in an anti-counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and design patent infringement suit involving sellers of counterfeit wheel sets; counterfeiting and trademark infringement suit involving sellers of counterfeit goods; obtained $5 million in statutory damages and a permanent injunction in favor of Lamborghini)
• TRUSTID, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc. (D. Del.) (trial counsel for plaintiff in a trial where the jury returned a verdict of willful false advertising in favor of the plaintiff and awarded both compensatory and punitive damages)
• IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del.) (counsel for Teva in patent infringement suit relating to pharmaceutical for hypothyroidism; patent found invalid as indefinite at Markman stage in favor of Teva, which was affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit)
• Osmotica Pharmaceutical US LLC et al. v. Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (D. Del.) (represented Osmotica in patent infringement suit relating to pharmaceutical for Parkinson’s disease)
• Rhodes Pharmaceuticals LP v. Actavis Inc. (D.N.J.) (represented Rhodes Pharmaceuticals in patent infringement suit relating to pharmaceutical for treatment of ADHD)

• Jaguar Land Rover Limited v. Volkswagen AG et al., Inv. No. 337-TA-1235 (I.T.C.) (counsel for Volkswagen AG; assisted in obtaining settlement resolving the dispute prior to trial)

• Wirtgen America, Inc. v. United States (Ct. Int’l Trade) (counsel for Wirtgen; obtained permanent injunction barring US Customs and Border Protection from improperly preventing Wirtgen’s redesigned machines from entering the US)
• Certain Lithium-Ion Batteries, Battery Cells, Battery Modules, Battery Packs, Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1159 (I.T.C.) (represented third party in defeating motion to compel and securing public interest exemption)
  
  *Representative experience includes matters handled at previous firm.

Looking ahead

Companies and patent owners have increasingly invested in defending and asserting their IP rights and will likely continue to do so. It also remains to be seen how the newly formed Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Europe will impact related US patent litigations and how the court could increasingly affect overall case strategies domestically as more litigants file concurrent cases at the UPC.

Insights

• “Considerations for Parallel Litigation in the European Unified Patent Court and U.S. District Courts,” [forthcoming] 2024
• “Statutory Damages Provide Key Enforcement Mechanism to Curb Counterfeiters,” The Trademark Lawyer, Dec. 22, 2022 (author)
• “What 9th Circ. Qualcomm Licensing Means for SEPs,” Law360, Aug. 13, 2020 (author)
• “Geographic Changes in Respondent Location in Section 337 Actions Over the Past Two Decades,” Paul J. Luckern Summer Associate Edition of the ITCTLA 337 Reporter, 2013 (author)