Matthew M. Zuziak

/My focus

My clients are often companies whose patents, technologies, brands, or market position are central to their business—innovators who have invested years and significant capital in developing products that deserve protection, and challengers who need a clear path to market. In either posture, the question I help them answer is the same: How do we use this litigation to get the company where it is trying to go?

That starts with understanding the business strategy behind the dispute. A patent or intellectual property case is rarely just about the legal right at issue. The outcome can affect the market position, licensing leverage, or commercial viability of a key asset. I build litigation strategies around those stakes—not just the legal questions.

Trial experience shapes everything I do, even in cases that settle. Opposing counsel and their clients make different decisions when they know their adversary is genuinely prepared to try the case. I’ve served as trial counsel in multiple jury and bench trials, and I’ve managed litigation teams through every stage of complex, high-value disputes—from pre-suit investigation through post-trial briefing and appeal. That depth of preparation is what creates real leverage at the negotiating table.

My practice includes patent infringement disputes, PTAB proceedings, US International Trade Commission investigations, and broader intellectual property matters involving trademarks, design patents, anti-counterfeiting, false advertising, and import-related issues. In those matters, I focus on connecting litigation strategy to the client’s business objectives.

My scientific background is part of how I serve clients, not just a credential. I have a master’s degree in chemistry, which means I can engage directly with technical experts, work through complex science and technology with client teams, and translate technical subject matter clearly for judges and juries. That technical fluency is especially valuable in pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and life science disputes, but it also informs my approach to a variety of technically complex cases.

/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

Life sciences and pharmaceutical companies, particularly in the cannabis industry, should expect an increasingly complex patent environment, as state legalization expands and federal rescheduling moves closer. Patent filings and infringement suits are likely to continue rising, including claims by non-practicing entities targeting commercially successful cannabis operators, making it critical for companies to treat patent strategy and litigation risk as core components of their broader competitive strategy.

/Insights

• TwinStrand Biosciences, et al. v. Guardant Health (D. Del.)—Served as lead associate and litigation team manager (15-member team) in a patent infringement suit involving DNA sequencing technology used for cancer detection. Guided the case from pre-suit investigation through trial and post-trial briefing, prevailed on all claims, and obtained a jury verdict of $245 million in damages for the plaintiff’s willful patent infringement, protecting the client’s market position against a well-capitalized competitor.
• IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del.)—Represented Teva in a patent infringement suit involving a pharmaceutical for hypothyroidism; patent found invalid as indefinite at the Markman stage, a result affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit.
• Osmotica Pharmaceutical US LLC, et al. v. Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. Del.) —Represented Osmotica in a patent infringement suit relating to a pharmaceutical treatment for Parkinson’s disease.
• Rhodes Pharmaceuticals LP v. Actavis Inc. (D.N.J.)—Represented Rhodes Pharmaceuticals in a patent infringement suit relating to a pharmaceutical treatment for ADHD.
• Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi AG v. Varona, et al. (S.D. Fl.)—Served as co-lead trial counsel for Volkswagen and Audi in an anti-counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and design patent matter; obtained $5 million in statutory damages and a permanent injunction in favor of Lamborghini.
• TRUSTID, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc. (D. Del.)—Served as trial counsel for plaintiff in a case where the jury returned a verdict of willful false advertising, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages.
• Wirtgen America, Inc. v. United States (Ct. Int’l Trade)—Obtained a permanent injunction barring US Customs and Border Protection from improperly blocking the import of Wirtgen’s redesigned machines.

Representative experience includes matters handled at previous firm.