Matias Ferrario is Co-Leader of Kilpatrick Townsend’s Patent Litigation Practice Group. Mr. Ferrario focuses his practice on intellectual property matters, including patent litigation, inter partes review, due diligence, and counseling. He is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Ferrario also has experience in complex litigation matters involving trade secrets, licensing, contract, and business tort disputes.
Mr. Ferrario has participated in cases in multiple federal courts, including the District of Columbia, District of Delaware, Eastern District of Texas, Northern District of California and Eastern District of Virginia. He has led all aspects of complex patent matters, including trial, preliminary injunctions, and inter partes review proceedings. Mr. Ferrario has substantive experience in a wide number of technical areas including, biotechnology, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, computer systems, call processing systems, business methods, software systems, and mechanical devices.
Mr. Ferrario was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Intellectual Property Litigation and Patent Litigation in 2024 and the six years immediately preceding. He is listed in the 2023 edition of Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business for Intellectual Property. Mr. Ferrario was named a top patent practitioner in 2021, 2022 and 2023 by IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners. He was recommended by Legal 500 US in 2023 for Patent Prosecution. Mr. Ferrario speaks Spanish.
Representative experience includes:
Represented adidas AG, adidas North America, Inc., adidas America, Inc., and adidas International Trading AG in patent infringement and importation investigation at ITC brought by Nike, Inc., related to the design and manufacture of shoe uppers for knitted footwear, with related action in Oregon federal court. One of the largest patent cases in the footwear industry, the case involved nine U.S. patents from multiple distinct families of patents, each covering a different subject matter. After completing both fact and expert discovery, the case was settled on confidential terms shortly before the evidentiary hearing at the ITC. In re Certain Knitted Footwear, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1289; Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG et al., No. 3:21-cv-01780 (D. Or.)
Invalidated a patent related to lubricating compositions through an Inter Partes Review. After oral argument, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision invalidating the patent. Infineum International Limited v. Afton Chemical Corporation, IPR2017-01321 aff’d 19-1322 (Fed. Cir. January 9, 2020).
Asserted patents in the ITC and District Court against an accused infringer on behalf of an athletic apparel maker. Successfully defended the validity of three patents in inter partes review proceedings, which were brought by defendants to the parallel patent infringement action. Reebok International Ltd. et al. v. TRB Acquisitions LLC et al., No. 3:16-cv-1618 (D. Or. 2019).
Defended the validity of two patents related to mechanical shoe cushioning systems in inter partes review proceedings, which were brought by a defendant to a parallel patent infringement action. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that the petitioner failed to prove the challenged patents invalid. Adidas America, Inc. et al. v. Skechers USA, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-01400 (D. Or. 2018).
Asserted a portfolio of patents on behalf of a national medical diagnostic and laboratory service provider resulting in favorable settlements. The patents related to pioneering inventions in the field of digital PCR. Esoterix Genetic Laboratories et al. v. Myriad Genetics, 1:16-CV-01112-WO-JEP (M.D. NC 2016).
Defended company against assertions of patent infringement over patents related to Bluetooth technology. Tried through jury verdict. Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 12-CV-03587-WHO (N.D. Cal. 2015).
Defended a medical diagnostic company accused of infringing patents related to identifying breast cancer genes. Successfully invalidated patents in an MDL litigation, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. In re BRCA1- and BRCA2-based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation, MDL Case 2:14-MD-02510, 2:13-CV-01069-RJS (D. Utah 2014).
Asserted a portfolio of patents related to digital sports and fitness tracking leading to a successful settlement on the eve of trail. adidas AG v. Under Armour, 14-CV-130-GMS (D. Del. 2014).
Represented defendant against patents related to CMOS image sensors and image processing. Imperium (IP) Holdings v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 4:11-CV-00163-RC-ALM (EDTX 2013).
Represented communication company in a litigation involving a large number of patents directed to call processing software and interactive voice response units. The patents related to natural language processing, optimized storing and routing of data, and other call processing technology. In re Katz Call Processing Litigation, Case No. CV 2:07-ML-01816-B-RGK (C.D. Cal. 2012).
Insights View All
Case Western Reserve University J.D. (2000)
Wake Forest University Post Baccalaureate Graduate Studies in Molecular Biology (1995) Post Baccalaureate Graduate Studies in Molecular Biology
University of Michigan B.S. (1994) Cellular and Molecular Biology
North Carolina (2008)
District of Columbia (2001)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Hispanic League, Member
Local Patent Rules Committee (M.D. NC)
NC Fusion Soccer, Board Member
North Carolina Bar Association, Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.