Matthew W. Hindman

Before practicing law, Matthew designed microprocessors at Intel Corporation and the Sandia National Laboratories. He also served as a U.S. Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle crew chief who participated in combat operations during Operation Desert Storm.

• Represented respondents Dell and Lenovo in a dispute with a patent assertion entity involving four patents related to Wi-Fi devices and methods. Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1429 (ITC).
• Served as technical lead counsel for defendants Dell and Lenovo in a dispute with a patent assertion entity involving six patents related to Wi-Fi devices and methods. Case settled on favorable terms. AX Wireless, LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-0277 (E.D. Tex.).
• Filed multiple inter partes review petitions on behalf of Intel Corp. on six patents related to Wi-Fi devices and methods. Cases settled on favorable terms. Intel Corporation v. AX Wireless, LLC, IPR2023-01135, IPR2023-01136, IPR2023-01137, IPR2023-01138,  IPR2023-01139, IPR2023-01140, IPR2023-01143, IPR2023-01144, IPR2023-01145, and IPR2023-01146.
• Served as technical lead counsel for defendant Intel Corp. in a dispute with a patent assertion entity involving a patent related to field-programmable gate array (FPGA) devices. Successfully secured a dispositive claim construction resulting in a case dismissal. FG SRC, LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 6:20-cv-00315 (W.D. Tex.).  
• Filed a petition for inter partes review on behalf of Intel Corp. on a patent related to a field‑programmable gate array (FPGA) devices. Successfully secured a final written decision holding all claims unpatentable. Intel Corporation v. FG SRC, LLC, IPR2020-1449.
• Served as technical lead counsel for defendant SiTime in a competitor dispute involving a patent related to MEMS resonator devices. Successfully secured a dispositive claim construction and court order ruling all claims invalid. Case dismissed. VTT Technical Research Centre v. SiTime Corporation, Case No. 4:19-cv-01174 (N.D. Cal.). Successfully defended the dismissal on appeal to the CAFC. VTT Technical Research Centre v. SiTime Corporation, No. 20-2189 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
• Filed an ex parte reexamination request on behalf of defendant MicroVention, Inc. for a patent related to vascular stent technologies, resulting in a stay of the co-pending district court case and cancellation of all challenged claims at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Stryker Corp. v. MicroVention, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00036 (D. Del.).  
• Served as technical lead counsel for defendant Silicon Mitus in a commercial competitor dispute involving six patents related to voltage regulators and power supply technology. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. and Volterra Semiconductor LLC v. Silicon Mitus, Inc. and Silicon Mitus Technology, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-03507 (N.D. Cal.).
• Represented defendant Inphi Corp. in a competitor dispute involving a patent related to rank multiplication in high-speed memory modules. Netlist, Inc. v. Inphi Corp., No. 2:09-cv-06900 (C.D. Cal.). 
• Represented plaintiff AT&T IP in commercial competitor dispute involving a patent related to Voice-over-IP networks. Case settled on favorable terms. YMax Corp. v. AT&T IP, No. 4:10-cv-00932 (N.D. Cal.). 
• Represented defendant-intervenor Cambridge Silicon Radio (CSR) in a dispute with a patent assertion entity involving a patent related to Bluetooth wireless technology in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Case settled on favorable terms. Bandspeed, Inc. v. Sony et al., No. 1:09-cv-00593 (W.D. Tex.). 
• Represented defendant-intervenor Intel Corp. in a dispute with a patent assertion entity involving a patent related to instruction parallelism in multi-core microprocessors. Case settled on favorable terms. Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Apple et al., No. 6:08-cv-00265 (E.D. Tex.). 
• Drafted expert reports on non-infringement and invalidity on behalf of Intel Corp. in a dispute with a patent assertion entity involving a patent related to microprocessor parallel processing technology. BIAX Corp. v. Intel Corp., No. 2:05-cv-00184 (E.D. Tex.).