Foley & Lardner LLP

Matthew B. Lowrie

Partner

Matthew B. Lowrie is a partner with Foley & Lardner LLP, where he is chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice.

Mr. Lowrie has a national intellectual property litigation practice, and has been chosen as lead trial counsel in over one hundred patent cases, filed in California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and before the International Trade Commission and the Court of Federal Claims. He is experienced in computer architecture, algorithms, networking, software, analog and digital circuits, semiconductor design, telecommunications, consumer products, and medical devices.

In addition to his experience as a litigator and counselor, Mr. Lowrie draws on his experience as a law clerk in the United States District Court of Massachusetts (for the Honorable Robert E. Keeton), as a corporate attorney experienced in licensing as well as corporate transactions, and as someone with a deep technical background, having published and presented his research in books, journals and at international conferences.

Mr. Lowrie was selected for inclusion in the Massachusetts Super Lawyers® lists for 2005 – 2012 in the areas of intellectual property and intellectual property litigation. He is selected by his peers for the 2012 and 2013 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® in the practice area of Litigation - Patent, and is recognized in the inaugural edition of the IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners 2012. Mr. Lowrie chairs the Intellectual Property Law Committee of the Boston Bar Association and has chaired the Patent Litigation Committee of the Boston Patent Law Association and its Patent Law Committee. He also chaired the Boston Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Litigation Committee.

Prior to joining Foley, Mr. Lowrie was a founding member of Lowrie, Lando & Anastasi, LLP, where his practice focused on patent litigation, counseling, the patent acquisition process, licensing and corporate transactions. He also draws on his experience as a shareholder, and as the first chairperson of the Litigation Practice Group at Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks – a position he held for more than four years.

Mr. Lowrie is an adjunct professor at Suffolk University Law School, where he teaches patent law. He also spent two years teaching software patent prosecution at the Franklin Pierce Law Center. Mr. Lowrie also contributes to his community, serving as a director of the Belmont Foundation for Education, an elected Town Meeting member, and as chair of the Belmont Board of Library Trustees.

Mr. Lowrie earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School (magna cum laude). He attended the University of Illinois, where he completed the course work for a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and received an M.S. in electrical engineering, and a B.S. in computer engineering (highest honors). During graduate school, he studied electrical circuits, solid state design, computer circuits, computer architecture and software. He also wrote (i) a book chapter and an invited journal paper on computer software and hardware architecture for artificial intelligence, (ii) a peer-reviewed paper on Supercomputers for Artificial Intelligence, (iii) a peer-reviewed paper on Machine Learning, and (iv) a peer-reviewed journal article, and paper presented at an international conference, on fault tolerant computer architecture.

Mr. Lowrie has published a variety of articles and is frequently quoted in, for example, The Boston Globe, The National Law Journal, The Boston Business Journal, Massachusetts High Tech Weekly, Bureau of National Affairs, Pharmaceutical Policy & Report, and Credit Card Management Magazine.

Representative Matters:

Oasis Research, LLC v. Adrive, LLC, et. al. Represented Carbonite in the Eastern District of Texas against a claim brought by Oasis Research, LLC, a non-practicing entity that was formed for the purposes of enforcing the patents. We secured a separate jury trial on inventorship issues, in advance of resolution of the other liability issues in the case. In March 2013, we secured a jury verdict for Carbonite that each of the four asserted patents is invalid.

Bose v. SDI Technologies, et al. Foley represented SDI in a patent infringement case brought by Bose Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Bose alleged that dozens of SDI products infringed a Bose patent covering music systems that included speaker and audio storage components. By obtaining a favorable claim construction and proving as a matter of law that SDI lacked the intent necessary to indirectly infringe the asserted claims, Foley was able to secure a summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims with respect to all accused products.

Cognex v. MVTec. Represented fourteen of twenty-two respondents in a three patent ITC investigation concerning machine vision software filed by Cognex Corporation. Cognex had initially sued MVTec on nine patents in the District Court of Massachusetts, all relating to machine vision and in particular methods for finding objects in a digital image. After MVTec threw all of the patents into reexamination, Cognex filed an ITC action on three of the nine patents. Cognex was forced to withdraw its claims on one of those patents during discovery and the remaining two went to trial before Judge Charneski at the ITC. Based on eight days of trial testimony (and extensive post-trial briefing), Judge Charneski found that no claims were infringed and that all of the asserted claims were invalid. After an additional round of briefing, the Commission confirmed. 337-TA-680

Kenexa BrassRing v. Taleo Corp. and Vurv Technology. Represented Kenexa, a leading provider of human resource outsourcing software, in patent infringement litigation against two competitors. We secured a summary judgment for Kenexa that all accused products infringed 54 of the 56 asserted patent claims. The case went to trial in the District of Delaware in June 2011. Foley secured a favorable settlement for Kenexa on the second day of trial, including judgment for Kenexa.

Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada. Represented Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada in a patent litigation matter. The Federal Circuit recently affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor of our client, Sun Life, that two patents owned by Bancorp are invalid for failure to claim patent eligible subject matter. Bancorp had appealed from the final decision of the U.S. District Court for the E.D. of Missouri which entered summary judgment that the asserted claims of U.S. Patents 5,926,792 and 7,249,037 were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The invalidated patents were the subject of three prior appeals to this court, where the defendants in each of those cases lost.

Avellanet v. Belden, Inc. Represented Belden, Inc., a leading manufacturer of signal processing equipment. Francisco Avellanet, who had approached Belden for licensing two patents on electrical cables several years ago, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois on November 24, 2008, accusing Belden of infringement of both those patents. Foley immediately took an aggressive stance, forcing Mr. Avellanet to drop one of the patents immediately, even before Belden filed an answer. Foley then managed to keep the case out of discovery, while getting infringement contentions from Mr. Avellanet. Based on those contentions, Belden revealed prior art that would invalidate the patent if those contentions were accepted by the court and jury. Mr. Avellanet was forced to withdraw the infringement allegations altogether and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Belden v. Superior Essex. Secured a summary judgment of infringement, and a jury trial verdict of validity, for several Belden patents directed to high-speed data communications cables technologies. After trial, the case settled on terms including a consent judgment for Belden and a license.

Color Kinetics v. Super Vision. Super Vision filed a declaratory judgment action in Florida and Color Kinetics responded with a direct patent infringement action in Massachusetts. After having all matters transferred to Massachusetts, Mr. Lowrie secured for Color Kinetics summary judgment on all liability issues, including that all claims of all five patents-in-suit are valid and enforceable, each of the five accused product lines infringe each assert claim, and rejecting Super Vision’s claims of tortious interference and product disparagement. Mr. Lowrie then received a $1.5 million award of attorney fees.

Zipwall. After securing judgment and an injunction against competitor, KwikPole, Mr. Lowrie filed a patent action against C&S Manufacturing. After several months of litigation, Mr. Lowrie secured final judgment of patent infringement, an injunction, an order to destroy all inventory and marketing collateral, and an award of attorney fees.

Hasbro v. RadGames. When RadGames sought to launch its Super Add-Ons™ board game, for use with the existing Monopoly® game board, Hasbro filed a lawsuit alleging copyright and trademark infringement and secured an ex parte restraining order. After extensive briefing and an evidentiary hearing, the Judge lifted the restraining order and denied Hasbro’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground that Hasbro was not likely to succeed in its claims, while noting that it "seems unlikely that further factual development will lead to a different outcome." The case settled immediately.

Akamai v. Speedera. In this complicated lawsuit involving cross-claims of infringement of multiple patents directed to Internet routing technology, Judge Zobel of the United States District Court of Massachusetts appointed Mr. Lowrie as special master for discovery.

Belden v. CDT. Mr. Lowrie served as lead counsel in defending this patent lawsuit. After discovery closed, the Court adopted CDT’s proposed claim constructions and Belden agreed that it could not succeed given that ruling and appealed. After Mr. Lowrie argued the appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed. Since then, the companies have merged and the general counsel of the former adversary has selected Mr. Lowrie to handle patent litigation on behalf of the combined company.

AW Chesterton v. Durametallic. Just before trial, Durametallic selected Mr. Lowrie to replace lead trial counsel. After a few weeks of intensive preparation and a last minute deposition of the inventor, Mr. Lowrie presented an opening argument to the jury that offered both new arguments and which formulated the previously articulated theories persuasively. After the first week of trial, the parties settled on a sum substantially lower than previously had been recommended to Durametallic by both the trial judge and a senior judge sitting as a mediator and, at the suggestion of Mr. Lowrie, the settlement was structured to permit an accounting treatment making the settlement yet more favorable.

Eisenberg v. Alimed. After insurance counsel successfully defended this patent lawsuit, insurance counsel, the insurance company and Alimed all agreed that Mr. Lowrie should take the lead in defending the decision on appeal. The Court accepted Mr. Lowrie’s arguments and affirmed.

Ottawa Heart Institute v. Abiomed. Ottawa Heart Institute (OHI) asserted claims of patent and trade secret infringement against the device used to power Abiomed’s total artificial heart; as a result of the suit, the fund-raising necessary for clinical trials was delayed. After Mr. Lowrie deposed OHI’s expert, OHI unilaterally withdrew its claims of patent infringement, without concession from Abiomed. The trade secret claims proceeded to trial. On cross examination by Mr. Lowrie, OHI’s expert testified that he could not opine that any trade secrets were taken and got OHI’s chief technical officer to confess that virtually all of the asserted trade secrets were not actually secret. After three hours of deliberation, the jury found for Abiomed with respect to all 26 asserted trade secrets and Abiomed began its successful fund-raising effort the following business day.

Cognex v. Matrox. When Matrox was sued for patent infringement, it selected Mr. Lowrie and Mr. Moore to handle defense of the claim. After aggressive development of its defensive position and aggressive pursuit of discovery, Mr. Lowrie and Mr. Moore succeeded in getting Cognex to withdraw its claims, without any concession or form of payment by Matrox.

Recent Presentations and Publications:

  • Adjunct Professor teaching Patent Law, Suffolk University Law School
  • “Software Patent-Eligibility: The Upcoming Federal Circuit En Banc Hearing,” Panelist in IPO IP Chat Channel webinar, December 20, 2012
  • “Akamai-McKesson: The En Banc Federal Circuit Takes On 'Divided Infringement,'” PLI Briefing, October 2, 2012
  • “5 Tips For Winning A Preliminary Injunction In An IP Case,” by Django Gold with Matthew Lowrie comments included, Law360, April 27, 2012
  • “The Changing Landscape of Joint, Divided, and Indirect Infringement - The State of the Law and How to Address It,” Matthew B. Lowrie with Kevin M. Littman and Lucas I. Silva, The Journal Of High Technology Law, Volume XII, No. 1, January 2012
  • "International IP Law Practice Issues," presented to the Consiglio Nazionale Forense (Italian Bar Association) in collaboration with University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law and Suffolk University Law School, Boston, August 9, 2011
  • "U.S. Prosecution Overview and Comparative Discussion with Canadian Prosecution," as part of the 2011 Summer Courses in Intellectual Property offered by the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada and McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, July 26, 2011
  • "Indirect, Divided, Joint, Upside Down, Etc.: What Does It Mean?" Boston Bar Association, presented March 17, 2011
  • "The Latest Developments in IP Law," Panelist in Suffolk University Law School Program, presented February 4, 2011
  • "U.S. Patent Year In Review: It’s Not Getting Easier," presented to Japanese companies, Kyoto and Tokyo, Japan, January 24-25, 2011
  • "Intellectual Property Year in Review," Boston Bar Association, presented January 19, 2011
  • "Protecting Proprietary Information," presented by Matthew B. Lowrie and Russell Beck (Beck Reed Riden LLP) for MCLE New England course, Boston, October 7, 2010
  • "U.S. Prosecution Overview and Comparative Discussion with Canadian Prosecution," as part of the 2010 Summer Courses in Intellectual Property offered by the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada and McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, July 27, 2010
  • "Doing Business In And With China," Panel Moderator for Boston Bar Association CLE course, Boston, July 15, 2010
  • "First Impressions: Bilski v. Kappos," presented with Denise W. DeFranco and moderated by Lee T. Gesmer, Boston Bar Association, July 1, 2010
  • "Latest Developments in U.S. IP Legislation and Litigation," Presentation for JBMIA and JEITA, presented by Jon W. Dudas, Pavan K. Agarwal, Matthew B. Lowrie and Larry L. Shatzer, April 14, 2010
  • "Hot Topic Round Up: Bilski, Prometheus, Damages, ITC, and More," and "For Greater Good or Evil? — Reaching Out to Fight NPEs," Panelist for Foley & Lardner LLP program "IP In The Reform Era: IP as Sword and Shield for Competitive Survival," Tokyo, Japan, April 13, 2010
  • "Making a Deal During Patent Litigation: Time-Frames, Opportunities and Evaluation," Presentation proposal for LES 2010 Conference, submitted by Matthew B. Lowrie with Jon Dudas, March 2010
  • "Intellectual Property Year in Review," Boston Bar Association, January 13, 2010
  • "Technology Cases To Watch In 2010," by Melissa Lipman with Matthew Lowrie comments included, LAW360, January 4, 2010
  • "What’s Your Next Move: IP in the New Business Reality," Panel Moderator, Foley’s Fifth Annual IP Conference, October 6, 2009
  • "Some Tips to Counter the Threat of Counterclaims," Boston Business Journal, September 25, 2009
  • "Patent Litigation – Practice Perspectives and Strategic Decisions," Panelist with James Myers and Frank P. Porcelli, Suffolk University Law School Program on How Changes in Patent Law Alters Patent Prosecution, Litigation & Licensing, September 25, 2009
  • "U.S. Prosecution Overview and Comparative Discussion with Canadian Prosecution," presented with Andrew Hicks (Hicks & Penman Ltd.) as part of the 2009 and 2008 Summer Courses in Intellectual Property offered by the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada and McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, July 29, 2008, July 28, 2009
  • "Effective Strategies for Licensing Technology in China," panel moderator, Foley’s Global Marketplace: Eye on China Roundtable Series, July 1, 2009
  • "Operational concerns in starting and running a law firm," presented with Kathy Jo Cook, Suffolk University Law School Program on Starting and Succeeding in Your Own Law Firm, January 29, 2009
  • "Mission statements: finding purpose," Suffolk University Law School Program on Starting and Succeeding in Your Own Law Firm, January 22, 2009
  • Program co-chair, "Intellectual Property Law Year in Review," Boston Bar Association, January 15, 2009
  • "In re Bilski (Fed. Cir. October 30, 2008) (en banc) – A New World For Prosecution and Litigation of Software and Business Method Patents, or Not?" Boston Bar Association, December 12, 2008
  • "Networked for the Knowledge Economy: Creativity, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights," presented to, with transcript published by, the Royalty Society for Arts Commerce and Manufacture, 2008
  • "Patent Litigation in the Eastern District of Texas," moderated by Matthew B. Lowrie, presented by the Patent Litigation Committee of the Boston Patent Law Association, Boston, MA, December 11, 2007
  • "Successful Strategies for Jury Trials," as presented by Matthew B. Lowrie (and other faculty members) as part of The 4th Thomas F. Lambert, Jr. Conference at Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA, October 24, 2008
  • "The Importance of Reputation and Value in Attracting Blue-chip Clients," book chapter in Inside the Minds: Attracting and Retaining Clients, Aspatore Publishing
  • "Valuation in Litigation," presented by Matthew B. Lowrie (and other faculty members) as part of the Lessons for Businesses: Valuation of Patents program, sponsored by the Suffolk University Law School Intellectual Property Law Concentration and the Center for Advanced Legal Studies, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA, October 25, 2007
  • "Venture-Funded Patent Enforcement: Structure and Effect of these New Deals," presented by Matthew B. Lowrie (LL&A) and Michael Cannata, NW Patent Funding Corporation, at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Licensing Executives Society (LES), Vancouver, Canada, October 15, 2007
  • "Litigation Strategies and Judicial Perspectives," presented by Matthew B Lowrie (and other faculty members) as part of The CSI Effect: Litigation Strategies and Courtroom Dynamics program, sponsored by the Flaschner Judicial Institute and the Center for Advanced Legal Studies, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA, May 10, 2007
  • "Networked for the Knowledge Economy: Creativity, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights," concluding remarks presented by Matthew B. Lowrie at IP Rights and the Trend Toward Openness conference, October 2006
  • "Building a Big-Firm Foundation," Matthew B. Lowrie and Peter C. Lando, National Law Journal, April 4, 2005
  • "Privilege after the House of Lords’ Ruling in Three Rivers," Matthew B. Lowrie and Emily A. Berger (with David Knight, Esq. and Zöe Allenby, Esq.; Field Fisher Waterhouse), Patent World, March 2005
  • "Critical Issues in Managing Patent Litigation," Matthew B. Lowrie, IDEA The Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2004
  • "Licensing for Future Litigation: The Impact of Patent Licensing Terms on Litigation Against Others," presented by Matthew Lowrie (and Russell Parr, president, Intellectual Property Research Associates) at the 2005 Licensing Executive Society (LES) Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, October 19, 2005
  • "The Impact of Litigation on Patent Drafting," presented by Matthew Lowrie at the Boston Patent Law Association (BPLA) Fall Patent Primer seminar, October 14, 2005
  • "More than one inventor carries risks in patents," Matthew B. Lowrie, Mass High Tech, April 5, 2004
  • "Investors, Acquirers Assert Greater IP Due Diligence in Today’s Transactions," Peter C. Lando and Matthew B. Lowrie, Mass High Tech, February 2, 2004
  • "The Changing Face of IP Due Diligence," Peter C. Lando and Matthew B. Lowrie, Newsletter of Women Entrepreneurs in Science & Technology (WEST), January 13, 2004
  • "Litigating Reliance on Advice of Counsel," presented by Matthew Lowrie at the Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), Boston, MA, September 13, 2004
  • "Ethics: Not as Easy as it Looks," presented by Matthew Lowrie (Key Note Speaker), Order of the Engineer Induction Ceremony, Boston University, February 27, 2004
  • "Critical Issues in Managing Patent Litigation," presented by Matthew Lowrie at the Franklin Pierce Law Center SIPLA Symposium on Strategies for Intellectual Property Litigation, November 2003
  • "The Rising Importance of Inventorship Controversies," Matthew B. Lowrie, National Law Journal, May 12, 2003
  • "Managing Patent Litigation to Success," Matthew B. Lowrie, FindLaw Patent Strategies 2003 Seminar Proceedings, April 2003
  • "Taking Down an Opinion," presented by Matthew Lowrie at the Boston Patent Law Association (BPLA) Patent Opinions: Drafting, Attacking and Defending seminar, November 2003
  • "Diligence: What Type of Investigation is Due?" presented by Matthew Lowrie at the 2003 Licensing Executive Society (LES) Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, September 2003
  • "Managing Patent Litigation to Success," presented by Matthew Lowrie (panelist with The Honorable Patti Saris) at the FindLaw Patent Strategies 2003 Seminar, Boston, MA, April 28, 2003
  • "Five Rules for Winning Patent Cases," Matthew B. Lowrie, Corporate Counsel, January 3, 2003; also in US Industry Today, December 3, 2002
  • "Know What to Look For Before You Enter Patent Litigation," Matthew B. Lowrie, Massachusetts High Technology Weekly, August 5, 2002
  • "Managing Patent Litigation to Success," Matthew B. Lowrie, Sixth Annual Conference on Technology Dispute Resolution, Conference Proceedings, Suffolk University Law School, 2002
  • "Recent Supreme Court Ruling May Expand Patent Coverage and Create Uncertainty," Matthew B. Lowrie and Laura Topper, Pharmaceutical Law and Policy Report, January 31, 2002; also in Global eCommerce Law and Business Report, January 11, 2002
  • "Patent Litigation," presented by Matthew B. Lowrie at the Sixth Annual Conference on Technology Dispute Resolution, Suffolk University Law School, 2002
  • "Intellectual Property Law" seminar presented by Matthew Lowrie for Boston University Graduate School of Engineering, 2002
  • "Managing Patent Litigation" presented by Matthew Lowrie (and Michelle Lando, Esq., Cabot Corporation) to the Boston Chapter of the American Corporate Counsel Association (ACCA) and the American Bar Association (ABA), November 2002
  • Key Note Speaker, Matthew Lowrie, Order of the Engineer Induction Ceremony, Boston University, 2002
  • "US Intellectual Property Litigation: Danger in Building the Super Highway," Matthew B. Lowrie and Michael Albert, SSGRR International Conference on Internet Infrastructure, Rome, Italy, 2001
  • "An Engineer’s Primer on Intellectual Property Litigation," Matthew B. Lowrie and Chris Schultz, Proceedings of the SPIE (Optical Engineering) National Conference, Boston MA, 2000
  • "Scope of Use Clauses in Software Licenses," presented by Matthew Lowrie to the Massachusetts Software Council, 1999
  • "Software Licensing: Let’s Make a Deal," presented by Matthew Lowrie at a joint meeting of the Licensing Executives Society (LES) and Franklin Pierce Law Center, 1999

Related