Matthew J. Dowd
Founder and Managing Partner
Direct: (202) 573-3853
J.D., George Washington Law School, 2008, with high honors
Ph.D. Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1995-1999
B.S. The College of William and Mary, 1993
Law Clerk, Chief Judge Paul R. Michel (ret.), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2008-2009)
U.S. Supreme Court
District of Columbia
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of International Trade
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Matthew Dowd focuses his skills on complex appellate and trial litigation, with an emphasis on patent and intellectual property issues. Through his years of practice, Mr. Dowd has successfully worked on numerous high-stakes and eclectic legal matters, focusing primarily on all stages of complex patent matters (AIA proceedings, litigation, prosecution, and counseling). Mr. Dowd's expertise and leadership are regularly consulted, as he is frequently asked to comment in the press on leading intellectual property issues.
Mr. Dowd has substantial experience with Hatch-Waxman litigation, including all stages of opinion analysis, litigation, and appeals. His technical background in medicinal chemistry is ideally suited for litigating pharmaceutical patents. He has represented clients in a range of trial forums for patent disputes, such as the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware, as well as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the USPTO.
He has argued appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and the D.C. Circuit, with over fifteen appeals (and briefed numerous others) before the Federal Circuit and other courts involving issues such as patent law, Hatch-Waxman, administrative law, Fifth Amendment takings, contract claims, government employment issues, and criminal law. Most recently, in 2018, Mr. Dowd was co-counsel with the Hon. Richard Posner (ret.) of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
In 2013, Mr. Dowd represented Nobel Laureate James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, as amicus curiae in the groundbreaking 2013 Supreme Court gene patent case. Mr. Dowd has over 15 years of experience representing clients before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Mr. Dowd's work has been reported in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. He is also well-known for his successful pro bono representation in the "free-range kids" case. The case was widely reported in the national, local, and international news. (See here.)
Education and Prior Experience
Mr. Dowd attended The George Washington University Law School, graduating with high honors and being awarded Order of the Coif. While attending law school and before, Mr. Dowd worked full-time as a registered patent agent at the renowned IP boutique Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox.
After law school, Mr. Dowd clerked for the Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge (ret.) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While a law clerk, Mr. Dowd gained an insider's perspective on the appellate process. Understanding the appellate process is critical to maximizing success at the earlier stages of a case.
Mr. Dowd is currently appointed as a Professorial Lecturer in Law at The George Washington University Law School. He teaches appellate advocacy and is the coach for the student moot court team for the AIPLA Giles Sutherland Rich Moot Court Competition.
Prior to his legal career, Mr. Dowd spent four years in a Ph.D. program in medical chemistry, studying pharmaceutical drug design, organic chemistry, and pharmacology. During his Ph.D. program, Mr. Dowd's research discovered a novel structure-activity relationship for nicotinic ligands with potential utility in treating Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Mr. Dowd attended The College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, VA, and Regis High School in New York City.
Co-Chair, Pharma/Biologics Subcommittee for the Patent Litigation Committee of the ABA IP Section (2016-2018)
Regional Director, The Posner Center of Justice for Pro Se’s (2017-2019)
Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association
Editorial Advisory Board for Law360 (2016-2018)
Mr. Dowd's legal work and writing have been recogni zed throughout the years.
Profiled in the 2014 Annual Report of the Paralyzed Veterans of America for his pro bono legal work for military veterans (See page 42 here)
2011 Burton Award Distinguished Legal Writing Winner for an article titled "Panacea or Poison Pill: Making Sense of the New Biosimilars Law."
Federal Circuit Bar Association Pro Bono Leadership Awards (2012, 2011)
Marcus B. Finnegan Writing Competition, First Place (2007) for article on the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112
Marcus B. Finnegan Writing Competition, Second Place (2005), for article on obviousness-type double patenting
NYIPA Hon. William C. Conner Writing Competition, First Place (2006)
NYIPA Hon. William C. Conner Writing Competition, Second Place (2007)
Paralyzed Veterans of America Annual Writing Competition, First Place (2005), for his article on the fee-limitation for representing veterans, 38 U.S.C. 5904(c)
The following are representative cases handled and worked on by Matthew Dowd. Note that some cases were handled prior to Dowd Scheffel.
Intellectual Property Cases
IMAPizza, LLC v. At Pizza Ltd., 334 F. Supp. 3d 95 (D.D.C. 2018). Mr. Dowd is lead counsel representing At Pizza and other U.K. defendants in an intellectual property case involving claims under the U.S. Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, D.C. trespass law, and U.K. law. The district court ruled entirely in favor and dismissed all claims against of our clients. The district court's main decision can be read here. The case is currently pending on appeal at the D.C. Circuit.
Syngneta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00509-D (E.D.N.C. 2019). Mr. Scheffel and Mr. Dowd represent Atticus in a patent infringement suit concerning the crop fungicide azoxystrobin.
Eisai Co., Ltd. v. Glenmark Pharms. Ltd., No. 19-cv-01214 (LPS) (D. Del. 2019). Dowd Scheffel represented Glenmark in later-wave litigation in the District of Delaware involving Banzel® (rufinamide). The case was resolved prior to significant discovery under favorable settlement terms.
Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Glenmark Pharms. Ltd., No. 19-cv-12045 (RMB) (D.N.J. 2019). Dowd Scheffel represented Glenmark in later-wave litigation in the District of New Jersey involving Glumetza® (extended-release metformin). The case was resolved under favorable settlement terms shortly after the answer was filed.
Bial–Portela & CA S.A. v. SPH Shanghai Zhongxi Pharm. Co., No. 18-775-CFC (D. Del. 2018). Dowd Scheffel represented the ANDA client in patent litigation concerning eslicarbazepine acetate (Aptiom®).
Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v Unified Patents, LLC, No. 16-1813 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Mr. Dowd was engaged at the appellate level to draft and file a response to patent owner's petition for rehearing. The patent owner had lost an IPR and also lost on appeal. In the petition for rehearing, the patent owner argued that the appeal was not moot and the court should vacate the PTAB's decision under the Munsingwear doctrine. Mr. Dowd's response on behalf of Unified Patents persuaded the court to deny the patent owner's petition for rehearing. The Response can be read here.
Tam v. Matal, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017). Mr. Dowd was lead counsel on an amicus brief by leading intellectual property professors in the groundbreaking case concerning the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Lanham Act. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the disparagement prohibition of Section 2 was unconstitutional, consistent with our amicus brief. Read the amicus brief here.
Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017). Mr. Dowd was counsel of record for Professors John Duffy and Richard Hynes in a Supreme Court case dealing with patent exhaustion and whether the doctrine of patent exhaustion extends to goods sold overseas. The amicus brief is here.
Retirement Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 136 S. Ct. 1513 (2016). Mr. Dowd was primary author of a Brief in Opposition in one of the first cases to reach the Supreme Court concerning the Covered Business Method ("CBM") review of the America Invents Act. The BIO persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the petition for writ of certiorari. The petition had argued, in part, that Section 101 was not a ground of invalidity and thus not properly within the scope of CBM reviews. This case was highlighted on Patently-O here. The Brief in Opposition can be read here.
ABT Holding Co. v. Garnet BioTherapeutics, Inc., No. 16-2116 (Fed. Cir.). Mr. Dowd was lead counsel in an appeal of a PTO interference decision involving patents relating to stem cell technology. Mr. Dowd was the main author of appellee Garnet's response brief, and he argued the appeal on behalf of Garnet. After oral argument, the client successfully settled the case, whereby Garnet received, among other consideration, $500K cash payment and 1 million shares of Athersys common stock plus $250K in each of the next four quarters. The appeal brief is here. During the underlying interference at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Mr. Dowd successfully defended Garnet's experts during deposition and deposed the opposing side's scientific expert witnesses, eliciting key testimony critical for success on appeal.
Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 15-1182 (S. Ct. 2016) and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom Inc., 809 F.3d 1282 (Fed Cir. 2015). Mr. Dowd was lead counsel in an amicus brief filed in support of a petition for writ of certiorari concerning the patentability of DNA-based inventions. The amicus brief is available here. Mr. Dowd also filed an amicus brief in support of the rehearing petition before the en banc Federal Circuit, which was highlighted by Patently-O here.
Retirement Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. App’x 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mr. Dowd successfully argued a Federal Circuit appeal affirming the PTAB’s decision in a covered business method (CBM) review of a patent asserted against multiple financial institutions. This appeal was only the second Federal Circuit appeal from a CBM review from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed in favor of Mr. Dowd's client.
Argentum Pharms. LLC v. Allergan, Inc., IPR No. 2016-01232 (PTAB). Mr. Dowd was lead counsel in a petition for inter partes review of a patent directed to the FDA-approved drug Restasis® (cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion). The matter settled favorably for the client before institution.
Argentum Pharms. LLC v. Research Corp. Techs., IPR No. 2016-00204 (PTAB). Mr. Dowd was lead counsel in a petition for inter partes review ("IPR") of a patent directed to the FDA-approved drug Vimpat® (lacosamide) for the treatment of epileptic seizures. Successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review of the Orange Book-listed patent where previous petitioners had failed.
Astornet Technologies, Inc. v. BAE Systems, Inc., 802 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mr. Dowd, along with his colleagues at his former firm, successfully represented one of the appellees in an appeal concerning the scope and application of 28 U.S.C. 1498(a), which governs claims of patent infringement against the federal government. Mr. Dowd was the primary brief author of appellees' response brief. The court's decision can be read here.
Advanced Aerospace Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-85 C. (Fed. Cl.). Mr. Dowd, along with his colleagues at his former firm, represented The Boeing Company in a patent infringement suit relating to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Mr. Dowd was the primary author on portions of the key claim construction briefing, and he argued the claim construction motion before Judge Susan Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The court's claim construction decision can be read here. The case later settled after Mr. Dowd left is prior law firm.
UHS of Delaware, Inc. v. United Health Services, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-00485 (M.D. Pa.). Counsel for defendant accused of trademark infringement.
Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen Inc., 845 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Mr. Dowd was lead counsel (at his prior firm) and primary author of appeal briefs in appeal concerning the appealability of a final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This case decided an issue of first impression for the Federal Circuit, in which the court adopted a broad test for Article III standing to appeal from the PTAB. The court's decision can be read here.
Fidelity Nat’l Information Servs. v. Plano Encryption Techs., LLC, No. 15-777-LPS-CJB, 2016 WL 1650763 (D. Del. Apr. 4, 2016). Mr. Dowd (along with colleagues from his former firm) represented FIS in a patent infringement action concerning encryption technology. FIS sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Mr. Dowd briefed and argued the opposition to patent owner's motion to dismiss. The court's decision is available here.
MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 15-1330 (S. Ct. 2015). Counsel of record for amicus brief in support of petition for certiorari concerning to the constitutionality of post-grant proceedings under the America Invents Act. Read the amicus brief here.
PPS Data, LLC v. VSoft Corporation, et al., No. 1:15-cv-00084-AT (M.D. Ga.). Represented patent owner in infringement action against defendants accused of infringing check imaging and processing technology. Case settled favorably for patent owner.
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., Nos. 14-1513 and 14-1520 (S. Ct. 2015). Counsel of record for amicus brief in Supreme Court case addressing enhanced damages in patent infringement cases and the proper interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 284. Read the amicus brief here.
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, 812 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Counsel of record for amicus brief in support of petition for rehearing en banc concerning whether the PTAB or the Director of the USPTO is authorized to institute an inter partes review under the America Invents Act.
Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLC, 803 F.3d 659 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mr. Dowd authored and filed an amicus brief on behalf of two academics in support of a rehearing petition. The rehearing petition raised the question of whether the “automatic assignment” rule first announced in FilmTec Corp. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 939 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1991), should be overruled. The amicus brief can be read here.
TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph, 790 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Assisted with briefing of patent appeal to the Federal Circuit concerning the claim construction of several claim terms relating to GPS-based mapping technology.
Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC v. Lee, 781 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Briefed and argued appeal concerning the validity of the PTO's decision to revive an abandoned international patent application). Listen to the oral argument here. Read the decision here.
Biogen MA v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 785 F.3d 648 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Filed amicus brief in Federal Circuit appeal concerning the appealability of an interference under the America Invents Act. Although the court declined to entertain the amicus brief, the court did agree with legal argument advanced in the brief. Read the court's opinion here. Filing of the amicus brief was reported here and here.
Cadence Pharms., Inc. v. Exela Pharma Scis., LLC, No. 11-733 LPS (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2013). Hatch-Waxman patent litigation concerning Orange Book-listed patents . As a key member of the trial team, Mr. Dowd argued various critical motions, including claim construction issues, and conducted the cross-examination of the key witnesses of plaintiff-patent owner.
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013). Represented Nobel laureate James D. Watson as amicus curiae in gene patent case.
East Coast Mgmt. v. Taylor, Trademark Opp'n No. 91214971 (TTAB filed Feb. 18, 2014). Successfully represented Taylor Gourmet restaurant chain in trademark opposition.*
In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 517 (D. Del. 2011), rev’d 676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Represented Mylan in an infringement action brought by Eurand, Cephalon, and Anesta AG in the District of Delaware and before the Federal Circuit on appeal. The case involved the drug Amrix® (an extended-release dosage form of the skeletal muscle relaxant cyclobenzaprine HCl).
OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 341 (D. Del. 2012). Hatch-Waxman patent litigation concerning anticancer drug Tarceva with sales over $1 billion per year. Mr. Dowd conducted the direct examination of the key expert witness on invalidity and cross-examination of key plaintiff witnesses. Conducted numerous depositions during discovery and primary author of briefing.
eComSystems, Inc. v. Shared Marketing Services, Inc., No. 8:10-cv-01531-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla.). Mr. Dowd represented patent owner eComSystems, Inc. in action asserting multiple patents covering systems for and methods of preparing computer-generated advertising in the Middle District of Florida. Along with his partner at the time, Mr. Dowd successfully settled the litigation for plaintiff against defendants Ace Hardware and Shared Marketing Services, and ultimately obtaining a default judgment against defendant Shared Marketing Services.
In the Matter of Certain Printing and Imaging Devices and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-690 (U.S.I.T.C.). Represented Oki Data Corp. in an ITC 337 action concerning alleged patent infringement and unfair importation of multifunction printers. Mr. Dowd second-chaired the pre-hearing conference before the ITC and successfully briefed the opposition to patent owner's motion to disqualify co-counsel.
US Inventor. Mr. Dowd represent the patent advocacy group US Inventor in challenging the USPTO's refusal to grant US Inventor a permit to conduct a protest of the USPTO's patent policy. Mr. Dowd filed an internal appeal of the agency's refusal to grant the use permit. After further negotiation, US Inventor successfully conducted its demonstration, which was one of the first protests in recent history at the USPTO. The protest was covered in the national news. See here and here.
Foo v. U.S. Department of State, No. 15-02033 (D.D.C. filed Nov. 20, 2015). Dowd Scheffel represents an individual in a matter challenging State Department's attempt to recover an alleged overpayment based on a federal annuity. Case pending.
Frankel v. United States, 842 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Briefed and argued an appeal of first impression about the Federal Trade Commission's Robocall Challenge administered pursuant to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The matter had been handled pro se by the litigant during the trial at the Court of Federal Claims. Mr. Dowd has retained to handle the appeal of the adverse trial court judgment. On appeal, the Federal Circuit accepted, for the first time, that a competition administered by a federal agency may be challenged under a theory of a breach of contract. The opinion can be read here.
White v. United States, 146 A.3d 101 (D.C. 2016). As pro bono counsel, Mr. Dowd successfully briefed and argued an appeal for an inmate who had pleaded guilty based on misinformation about his eligibility for parole. During the plea hearing, the trial judge provided incorrect dates about when he would be eligible for parole if he pleaded guilty. This appeal victory was highlighted by the D.C. Public Defender Service here. (Opinion link.)
Salem Financial, Inc. v. United States, 786 F.3d 932 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Successfully assisted with briefing and oral argument preparation in complex tax appeal. The Federal Circuit rule in favor of the client on the issue of whether the appellant was entitled to claim interest tax deductions for the interested it paid on the STARS Loan. Read the court's opinion here.
TrinCo Investment Co. v. United States, 722 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Successfully briefed and argued appeal concerning Fifth Amendment takings claim against the federal government. Listen to the argument here. Read the opinion here.
King v. Office of Personnel Management, 730 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Successfully briefed and argued an appeal concerning federal annuity benefits. Read the court's opinion is here.
Ward v. U.S. Postal Service, 672 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Successful petition for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). The Federal Circuit granted the fee request based on the successful appeal in Ward v. U.S. Postal Serv., 634 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2011), see below. In awarding the fees, the court issued three separate opinions about whether attorneys fees under EAJA can be awarded based on a successful remand to the agency. The opinions can be read here.
Kam-Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Represented U.S. citizen whose laptop business computer was seized by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (now U.S. Customs and Border Patrol) when returning to the United States through Dulles International Airport. Wrote brief and argued appeal on issues of brief of implied contract, Fifth Amendment takins, and Fourth Amendment. The opinion is here.
Ward v. U.S. Postal Serv., 634 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Mr. Dowd successfully briefed and argued an appeal concerning the wrongful termination of a 19-year employee of the U.S. Postal Service who was also a Navy veteran. The appeal resulted in an important decision concerning Due Process rights of federal employees. After the appeal, Mr. Dowd successfully negotiated a settlement with the Postal Service which returned Mr. Ward to employment and included a significant payment for lost wages as well as attorney's fees. The court's opinion is available here.