Partner
Matthew Luneack focuses on patent litigation before U.S. district courts as well as strategic client counseling. His practice covers a variety of technologies, including pharmaceuticals; biotechnology; chemical products and processes; and sports and fitness equipment.
Matthew is involved in all phases of district court litigation, from the initial pleadings through trial and post-trial. His experience includes developing claim construction, infringement, and validity positions; conducting fact and expert discovery; drafting briefs and motion materials; preparing witnesses; taking and defending depositions; arguing claim construction and evidentiary issues; and examining witnesses at trial. Matthew has particular experience representing pharmaceutical patent holders in litigations arising under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
Matthew's counseling practice includes providing strategic advice through opinions of counsel, patent portfolio development and management, due diligence investigations, and freedom-to-operate analyses. He has been recognized by Best Lawyers as "One to Watch."
Prior to his legal career, Matthew gained experience as a research and development intern for Masco Corporation, studying innovative water-saving plumbing products.
Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company
Representing Eli Lilly in patent litigations involving antibody therapies.
1:18-cv-12029, D. Mass., Judge Burroughs
Represented Allergan and Pierre Fabre in ANDA litigation in the District of New Jersey against multiple generic drug manufacturers seeking to make a generic version of Fetzima® (levomilnacipran) for the treatment of major depressive disorder.
2:17-cv-10230, D.N.J., Judges Mannion, Salas
Duchesnay Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. et al.
Represented Duchesnay in ANDA litigation in the District of Delaware against multiple generic drug manufacturers seeking to make a generic version of Bonjesta® (doxylaine succinate and phyridoxine hydrochloride) for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.
1:18-cv-01895, D. Del., Judges Andrews, Fallon
Valeant Pharmaceuticals Int’l, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.
2:16-cv-09038, D.N.J., Judges Chesler, Waldor
Grünenthal GmbH et al. v. Alvogen Pine Brook, Inc. et al.
1:15-cv-00687, D. Del., Judges Dyk, Sleet, Stark
Grünenthal GmbH v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
1:12-cv-08060, S.D.N.Y., Judges Griesa, Daniels, Gorenstein
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Assignor Estoppel Has “No Place” in IPR Proceedings Assignor Estoppel Has “No Place” in IPR Proceedings
November 27, 2018
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Federal Circuit Cautions Against Omitting Preamble Transition Words in Claim Drafting Federal Circuit Cautions Against Omitting Preamble Transition Words in Claim Drafting
November 16, 2018
IP Health Blog
CAFC Affirms No Interference-in-Fact in University of California v. Broad Institute CAFC Affirms No Interference-in-Fact in University of California v. Broad Institute
October 9, 2018
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Lack of Reasonable Expectation of Success Prohibits Finding of Interference-in-Fact Lack of Reasonable Expectation of Success Prohibits Finding of Interference-in-Fact
October 4, 2018
Press Release
29 Finnegan Attorneys Ranked by Best Lawyers 29 Finnegan Attorneys Ranked by Best Lawyers
August 18, 2022
U.S. News—Best LawyersDue to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
The Finnegan UPC Hub is a one-stop shop for our insights related to the Unified Patent Court (UPC).