Attorney Detail Banner
Back to Attorneys
Robson, Matthew

Matthew Robson

Partner

matthewrobson@quinnemanuel.com
Direct Tel: +1 212-849-7489, Direct Fax: +1 212-849-7100
New York
Tel: +1 212 849 7000 Fax: +1 212 849 7100

Matthew Robson is a patent litigation partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office.  Mr. Robson has litigated cases involving a wide array of technologies, with extensive experience in life science, medical device, fin tech, and data analytics matters.    

Mr. Robson has been recognized by the American Lawyer as a “Litigator of the Week” for his work involving CRISPR genome engineering technology.  Law360 has also recognized Mr. Robson as a "Rising Star" in the life sciences area.

Mr. Robson has extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in all aspects of case preparation, discovery, trial, and appeal.  He has litigated in jurisdictions throughout the country, including the Northern District of Illinois, the District of Delaware, the Southern District of New York, the Northern and Central Districts of California, the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Wisconsin, and the International Trade Commission.

  • American Express
  • AngioScore
  • BlephEx
  • The Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT
  • Cree, Merck Sharp & Dohme
  • Motorola
  • Secured a pivotal patent ruling for client The Broad Institute, Inc. regarding its CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing inventions in a proceeding involving The Regents of the University of California, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier.  On February 28, 2022, the PTAB issued an opinion and judgment confirming Broad’s entitlement to foundational patents directed to the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells (including humans, other animals, and plants).  Mr. Robson was recognized as a Litigator of the Week by the American Lawyer for this victory, which was widely covered in the press including in the Wall Street Journal, Time, Science, Nature, Barron’s, Bloomberg, and Reuters, among others (PTAB Interference) (Feb 2022).
  • Represented BlephEx in patent infringement litigation brought to protect its BLEPHEX® brand ophthalmic instruments for eyelid cleaning in connection with blepharitis and dry eye disease, obtaining, along with co-counsel, affirmance of the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting our client’s competitor from selling its device in the US (Fed. Cir.) (Feb 2022).
  • Represented BlephEx in patent infringement litigation brought to protect its BLEPHEX® brand ophthalmic instruments for eyelid cleaning in connection with blepharitis and dry eye disease, obtaining a preliminary injunction prohibiting competitor from selling its device in the US (E.D. Mich.) (Oct 2020).
  • Represented The Broad Institute, Inc. in an appeal of a patent interference suggested by the University of California and Emmanuelle Charpentier challenging key Broad patents directed to use of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells, humans, other animals, and plants.  QE, along with co-counsel, obtained a victory for the Broad, MIT and Harvard as the PTAB declared there was no interference in fact, which the Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.  This victory was widely reported in the press, where it was described as "a knockout in the biotech fight of the century" (Fortune) and "a blow to the University of California" in "a bitterly fought dispute" (NY Times).
  • Counsel for BlephEx, a start-up medical device company, in patent infringement litigation brought to protect its BLEPHEX® brand ophthalmic instruments for eyelid cleaning in connection with blepharitis and dry eye disease, obtaining a Federal Circuit decision confirming BlephEx’s right to assert and discuss infringement of its patents (E.D. Mich. and Fed. Cir.) (April 2020).
  • Represented American Express subsidiary InAuth, Inc. in patent infringement litigation brought against its authentication technologies, obtaining a complete dismissal of all infringement claims with prejudice (C.D. Cal.).
  • Represented American Express in patent infringement litigation brought against its prepaid card products, obtaining summary judgment of both non-infringement and invalidity (W.D. Wis.).
  • Represented American Express Co. in patent infringement litigation brought against its Travelers Cheque™ Card products, obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement and a Federal Circuit affirmance.
  • Represented AngioScore, a wholly owned subsidiary of Spectranetics, in patent inventorship litigation brought against three issued AngioScore medical device patents, obtaining a dismissal of all claims, with prejudice (N.D. Cal.).
  • Represented Cree Inc. in a Section 337 Investigation related to light-emitting diodes and related products. The ALJ found a violation in favor of Cree and ordered sanctions against the opposing side for discovery abuse.  The case settled favorably prior to a final Commission determination.
  • Represented Motorola in a multi-patent suit against Apple in the Northern District of Illinois before the Honorable Richard Posner, sitting by designation, obtaining dismissal of all claims on summary judgment.
  • Represented a major smartphone maker in a Section 337 investigation brought by Microsoft, obtaining an order of "no violation" as to eight of nine patents. The remaining patent was designed around.
  • Represented the CEO of a major pharmaceutical company in a securities class action lawsuit, which settled on favorable terms.

 

  • Harvard Law School
    (J.D., cum laude, 2007)
    • Harvard Law Review:
      • Editor
  • The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
    (B.E., summa cum laude, Mechanical Engineering, 2004)
  • The State Bar of New York
  • United States Court of Appeals:
    • Federal Circuit
    • First Circuit
  • United States District Court
    • Southern District of New York
    • Eastern District of Michigan
  • Law Clerk to the Hon. Bruce M. Selya:
    • United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 2009-2010
  • Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP:
    • Associate, 2007-2009
  • Named “Litigator of the Week” by The American Lawyer Litigation Daily (2022)
  • Named a “Rising Star” in Life Sciences by Law360 (2019)
  • LMG Life Sciences Awards - Patent Impact Cases of the Year (2019)
  • The Supreme Court, 2005 Term—Leading Cases, 120 HARV. L. REV. 332 (2006).
  • Recent Case, First Circuit Defines an Efficient Market for Fraud-on-the-Market Purposes—In re PolyMedica Corp. Securities Litigation, 119 HARV. L. REV. 2284 (2006).