Matthew Pham - Associate - Orange County

Matthew Pham

Associate

Orange County

[email protected]

Overview
Industries
Practice Areas
Representative Matters
Recognition
News & Insights

Overview

Matt Pham is an associate in Orange County with a focus on patent, trademark, trade secret, and appellate litigation.

Matt has experience in a variety of different technologies including medical devices, advanced computing, semiconductors, apparel, and consumer products. Matt continually leverages his engineering expertise to advance his legal practice when drafting documents, crafting arguments, and collaborating with colleagues.

Matt graduated magna cum laude from the University of Illinois College of Law. During law school, Matt served as Editor-in-Chief of the Illinois Business Law Journal, where he led the development and publication of the journal’s Fall 2018 and Summer 2020 volumes. Matt earned his bachelors degree in Materials Science & Engineering with honours from the University of Toronto, where he developed his passion for IP while designing consumer product packaging for a prominent multinational food and beverage company.

Matt Pham joined Knobbe in 2021.

Education

University of Illinois College of Law (J.D., 2021), Magna Cum Laude, Editor in Chief for the Illinois Business Law Journal
University of Toronto (B.A.S.c Materials Science & Engineering, 2018), With Honours

Bar Admissions

State Bar of California

News & Insights

Articles

Litigation Blog
Co-author, “Drake and the Emergence of AI in Creative Expression,” published in Reuters Legal (May 2024).
Co-author, “Young Sheldon’s Inventorship Woes: Important Lessons for All Young Inventors,” published in IP Watchdog (April 2024).

Latest Updates and News

In Reuters Legal, Matt Pham and Baraa Kahf Examine Implications of AI-Generated Voice Usage

In the Reuters Legal article “Drake and the Emergence of AI in Creative Expression,” associate Matt Pham and partner Baraa Kahf analyze the legal questions raised by rapper Drake’s use...

Lessons From Young Sheldon: Matt Pham and Baraa Kahf Offer Tips for Young Inventors in IPWatchdog Article

In the IPWatchdog article “Young Sheldon’s Inventorship Woes: Important Lessons for All Young Inventors,” associate Matt Pham and partner Baraa Kahf offer advice for young inventors who are looking to...

Blog - Litigation

If a Case Was Baseless, It Would Have Ended Sooner

OneSubsea IP UK Limited v. FMC Technologies, Inc. Before Clevenger, Moore, and Dyk. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Summary: Ordering additional discovery before ultimately grating summary judgment suggests that suit was not objectively baseless

Blog - Litigation

Once You’re In, You’re In, Amending Claims Addressing an Instituted Ground Allows for More Unrelated Amendments

AMERICAN NATIONAL v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION [OPINION]- PRECEDENTIAL Before Stoll, Schall, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-00497 and IPR2019 00500. Summary: Once a patent owner includes at least one amendment that is responsive to an instituted unpatentability ground, the patent owner may include more amendments to address other non-instituted grounds, such as potential § 101 and § 112 issues.

University Successfully Argues Prior Art’s Disclosures Were Not “By Another”

LSI CORPORATION v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Before Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Determining whether a patent or application’s disclosure is “by another” under § 102(e) requires evaluating the relied-upon portions of the disclosure to determine if the source of this disclosure is truly “by another;” a Board’s determination of untimeliness must be appealed even if the Board reaches the merits of the argument.

Blog - Litigation

When an Unmet Need May Not Be Enough

ADAPT PHARMA OPERATIONS LTD. V. TEVA PHARMS. USA, INC. Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: Recent attempts by competitors to achieve patented technology, both before and after patent’s publication, not strong enough objective indicia of nonobviousness.