Matt Poppe is a patent litigation partner in the Silicon Valley office. He
also handles other intellectual property and commercial litigation,
including trade secret, trademark, breach of contract, and false
advertising disputes. Matt is currently serving as President of the Santa Clara County Bar Association.
Matt is a patent litigator focusing on computer networking, data storage, and Internet technologies. He has first-chair trial experience in both patent and commercial cases, and has been successful obtaining many pretrial dismissals and settlements as well. Key clients include EMC (now part of Dell Technologies), eBay, Baidu, Brocade, and Varian Medical Systems.
Matt is President of the Santa Clara County Bar Association, a 99-year-old organization with 2,400 members. He chairs the Board of Trustees and Executive Committee, and serves on several other committees as well. Matt is overseeing several strategic initiatives of the SCCBA and authors a monthly "President's Message" in the San Francisco Daily Journal. Matt is also a board member and past co-chair of the Campaign for Legal Services, a charity that raises funds and distributes them to eight local pro bono agencies in order to boost their ability to assist the needy.
Matt has been listed as a Northern California Super Lawyer every year from 2012-2016.
The following are some of Matt's notable cases.
- EMC Corporation. Matt
has represented EMC in patent cases related to data storage technology,
including an ongoing case against competitor Pure Storage, Inc. in the District of
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Matt has represented Varian in patent cases related to imaging systems for radiation therapy.
- Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Matt has represented Brocade and its subsidiary, Foundry
Networks, in several multi-patent suits against Nortel, Alcatel,
Enterasys, and A10. The patents related to computer networking, server
load balancing, and VoIP technologies.
- Nanya Technology Corp.
Matt represented Nanya in an ITC proceeding and related district court
patent suit filed by Elpida Memory, Inc. The matter settled pending
Commission review of the ALJ's initial determination, reached after a
full hearing on the merits. The six patents-in-suit related to DRAM
- Nikko Materials USA Inc. v. R.E. Service Co. Matt
represented Nikko's subsidiary JJA in this patent case in the Northern
District of California. JJA won a jury verdict of willful infringement
on its patent, while RES's patent counterclaims were dismissed on
summary judgment. The patents related to copper foil laminate technology
used in manufacturing multilayer printed circuit boards.
- Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc.
Matt represented Brocade in a trade secret and patent action that it
filed against A10 Networks. The case, which related to computer
networking and server load balancing technology, resulted in a
substantial judgment in Brocade's favor after a jury trial.
- Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp.
Matt represented Intel in this lawsuit accusing Intel of
misappropriating trade secrets allegedly contained in commercial
software that Intel had purchased from a third party. The trial court
dismissed Silvaco's claims on summary judgment and the decision was
affirmed on appeal. Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp., 184 Cal. App. 4th 210 (2010).
- United States v. McDowell. Matt
represented Applied Materials in connection with this criminal case in
the Northern District of California in which the defendants were
convicted of crimes relating to the misappropriation of Applied's trade
secrets relating to semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
- Collagen Corp. v. Matrix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Matt represented Matrix Pharmaceuticals in this trade secret action
involving a process for manufacturing collagen for pharmaceutical
purposes. The case settled shortly before trial in Santa Clara County
Licensing Agreement and Other Contract Disputes
- Flextronics v. ICU Medical. Matt
represents Flextronics in this arbitration proceeding and related state
court action, in which each side charges the other with breaches of a
design services agreement.
- Ho v. Hsieh and HHI v. Chung.
These cases involved a dispute between family members and business
partners related to the operation of a golf course. Matt inherited the
cases after his clients had suffered losses at the trial court level.
Matt obtained appellate reversals in each case, with one resulting in a
published decision. Ho v. Hsieh, 181 Cal. App. 4th 337 (2010). Trial proceedings on remand secured an improved result for his clients.
- Lollicup v. Vigour Pak.
Matt has represented Vigour Pak, a Taiwanese company, in a contract and
trademark dispute against a U.S. competitor in the Central District of
- Ion Beam Applications, Inc. v. Outrigger Systems, Inc.
Matt represented Outrigger Systems in this contract action involving
disputed ownership of software that Outrigger had developed.
- LHS v. Pacific Bell Wireless.
Matt represented PBW (later called Cingular Wireless, and now AT&T)
in this license dispute. In 2001, PBW defeated LHS’s claims at an
arbitration hearing and obtained a multimillion dollar award on its
- Acer, Inc.
Matt represented Acer in a class action false advertising case filed in
the Southern District of Florida relating to notebook computers. The
case was brought to a speedy, satisfactory conclusion.
- Rumbaugh v. Pacific Bell Wireless. Matt
successfully defended PBW against this consumer class action, which
settled after the trial court refused to certify a class and the
decision was upheld on appeal.
- Veloff v. Pacific Bell Wireless. Matt obtained a dismissal of this false advertising case on demurrer and the ruling was affirmed on appeal.
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss, Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, et al., 16-cv-03166-JST (Judge Jon Tigar)
One purpose of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) is to preempt and displace many common law causes of action that could arguably apply in a trade secrets case, such as conversion. Nevertheless, it is still common for plaintiffs in trade secrets cases to plead a great variety of causes of action. A recent decision from Judge Tigar helps clarify when such causes of action are preempted and when they can coexist with a cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. READ MORE
N.D. Cal. Patent Local Rules
Patent litigants in the Northern District of California will have something new to argue over following the Court’s approval in January of Patent Local Rule amendments that impose damages-related disclosure requirements. The Court also tweaked a few other patent local rules. READ MORE
Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Plaintiffs’ Motion For Default Judgment, Timothy Ferriss, et al. v. Alliance Publishing, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05675 (Judge Edward M. Chen)
Tim Ferriss is known for authoring The 4-Hour Workweek and other self-help books on the “4-Hour” theme. He may now become known as the “4-Hour Plaintiff” after he and a company he owns, Krisa Performance, obtained a default judgment against defendants alleged to have improperly used his name and likeness in connection with a fraudulent scheme.
Order Granting Summary Judgment On Dropbox Laches Claims, Dropbox, Inc. v. Thru Inc., Case No. 15-cv-01741-EMC (Judge Edward M. Chen)
The proverb “[e]quity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones” aptly describes the rationale behind the defense of laches-i.e., the legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff who unjustifiably delays pursuing a claim may forfeit it. Intended to encourage the timely resolution of disputes and to avoid prejudice to defendants, laches can have dire consequences for plaintiffs who unreasonably delay bringing their claims. READ MORE
Order Regarding Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1, VIA Tech., Inc. v. ASUS Computer Int’l et al., Case No. 14-cv-3586 (Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd)
There is a tension in many IP cases between disclosure rules that require a plaintiff to identify its liability theories early in the case, and the understandable desire of the plaintiff to keep open its options for seeking recovery. Some plaintiffs respond to these tensions by stating their allegations in highly general terms, often leading defendants to ask for more specifics. Other plaintiffs attempt to overwhelm their opponents with detail, triggering calls by their opponents to narrow the relevant claims. Sometimes such obfuscatory tactics work, but they can backfire too. That was the recent result in VIA Tech., Inc. v. ASUS Computer Int’l et al., in which a plaintiff seeking recovery for misappropriation of trade secrets was ordered not only to trim its case, but also to disclose the alleged trade secrets to the defendant (rather than only to defense counsel). READ MORE
Order Granting Motion for Default Judgment, Adobe Systems Inc. v. Software Tech, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-02140-RMW (Judge Ronald M. Whyte)
Everyone in the software field (and probably every computer user) is familiar with Adobe and at least one of its products, including Acrobat and Photoshop. Popular software vendors like Adobe are often the victims of piracy and the unauthorized distribution of their products. As such, many have adopted policing measures like employing investigators to purchase products from third-party distributors to verify authenticity and proper licensing. READ MORE