Matthew Zapadka counsels clients on the protection and enforcement of their intellectual property assets, with a focus on patent litigation. In this role, he advises on various intellectual property disputes in federal district court and state court, as well as trials at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), along with filing and arguing appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Though he focuses on patent litigation, Matthew also has experience litigating commercial disputes. Matthew has worked with companies across a variety of sectors, including but not limited to: genetic technologies; biomolecular engineering, such as therapeutic and diagnostic molecules; prosthetics; nutritional supplements; nuclear reactors; ultracapacitors; and genetic data visualization systems.
Prior to joining Bass, Berry & Sims, Matthew was an associate at Porzio, Bromberg & Newman P.C. and Squire Patton Boggs, LLP on their IP teams where he advised on U.S. and international patent prosecution and litigation matters. In addition, Matthew served as a patent examiner with the USPTO examining applications related to photoelectric and thermoelectric devices, which includes semiconductor, photovoltaic, and integrated circuit technologies. Matthew was also a judicial intern for the Honorable Susan G. Braden at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims where he worked on a number of issues, including a patent dispute over drone technology.
Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
American Intellectual Property Association
Intellectual Property Owners Association
Federal Circuit Bar Association
We represented nutritional supplement manufacturing company, Natural Alternatives International, Inc. (Nasdaq: NAII), in a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals case in which our client had brought claims against rival Creative Compounds LLC, accusing Creative Compounds of infringing six of its patents covering various forms of beta-alanine and its use as a muscle-building supplement. The Southern District of California had dismissed the suit, finding the patent claims to be directed toward a product of nature (beta-alanine) and a law of nature (that taking beta-alanine in sufficient quantities builds muscle) and thus patent-ineligible. On appeal, a split panel sided with our client, finding the district court applied too broadly the ineligibility doctrine of the “Alice/Mayo test” and that, although beta-alanine itself can occur as a natural substance, the claims containing beta-alanine as one aspect covered more than an unpatentable natural law.
Law360 provided analysis of the case in the articles:
Represented Life Technologies Corp. in a Federal Circuit Appeal stemming from a 2017 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in a covered business method proceeding (CBM). Michael Kiklis represented Life Technologies in two covered business method proceedings: one was filed in 2014 and the other was filed in 2015. Life Technologies prevailed in both proceedings with the PTAB finding that all challenged claims of Unisone Strategic IP Inc.’s inventory management patent recited ineligible subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. This appeal involved the second CBM. Unisone chose not to appeal the first CBM. The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on December 4, 2018, and then affirmed the PTAB’s decision less than one week later.
Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers “Rising Star” (2018-2019)