Intellectual Property Firm
“Companies across the world have come to depend on Matthias Scholl for developing & protecting their intellectual property assets.”
Overview
Matthias Scholl is a law firm focused exclusively on intellectual property law, with particular emphasis on patent and trademark prosecution.
We advance our clients’ interests through careful legal analysis, innovative problem-solving, and dedicated representation. Our work is guided by a strong commitment to quality, practical judgment, and responsiveness. This approach reflects our genuine focus on our clients’ objectives and has resulted in long-standing client relationships and referrals worldwide.
Realizing advanced technology®
Founder
Dr. Matthias Scholl is the founder and administrative head of the firm.
Dr. Scholl’s academic background includes:
- Doctor of Laws (J.D.), Harvard Law School
- Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Organic Chemistry, California Institute of Technology, for work contributing to research recognized by the 2005 Nobel Prize in Chemistry awarded to Prof. Robert H. Grubbs
- Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), International University of the Health Sciences
- Three Bachelor of Science (S.B.) degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with a triple major in chemistry, chemical engineering, and foreign languages and literatures
Dr. Scholl is a registered patent attorney admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is also admitted to the Massachusetts Bar and to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Patent Metrics
1618
Granted U.S. Patents
586
Clients Worldwide
131
Patents for Largest Client
2.53
Average Patents per Client
2001-03-15
Earliest Filing Date
2006-03-21
Earliest Issue Date
2026-06-30
Most Recent Issue Date
4.37
Fastest Pendency (months)
27.12
Average Pendency (months)
Top Patent Classes
- H02K - DYNAMO-ELECTRIC MACHINES
- A24F - SMOKERS’ REQUISITES; MATCH BOXES; SIMULATED SMOKING DEVICES
- H02P - CONTROL OR REGULATION OF ELECTRIC MOTORS, ELECTRIC GENERATORS OR DYNAMO-ELECTRIC CONVERTERS; CONTROLLING TRANSFORMERS, REACTORS OR CHOKE COILS
- G01N - INVESTIGATING OR ANALYSING MATERIALS BY DETERMINING THEIR CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
- A61K - PREPARATIONS FOR MEDICAL, DENTAL OR TOILETRY PURPOSES
- C02F - TREATMENT OF WATER, WASTE WATER, SEWAGE, OR SLUDGE
- F04D - NON-POSITIVE-DISPLACEMENT PUMPS
- B01J - CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL PROCESSES, e.g. CATALYSIS OR COLLOID CHEMISTRY; THEIR RELEVANT APPARATUS
- B01D - SEPARATION
Latest News
GoodPop, JonnyPops Trade Blows In Fruit Pop False Ad Fight
GoodPop and JonnyPops have both filed summary judgment bids in a false advertising battle in Texas federal court that was filed two years ago by GoodPop, each arguing that their rival's claims over th...
Read Full ArticleFed. Circ. Clears Boston Scientific In $49M Stent Patent Case
The Federal Circuit on Monday overturned a $49.4 million patent judgment against Boston Scientific, ruling that the company's drug-eluting coronary stents did not infringe a patent owned by the Univer...
Read Full Article7th Circ. Asked To Clarify Copyright Prevailing Party Status
A man who successfully defended himself from being held liable for damages when he was sued by a food photography company that claimed his photo of raw meat on Facebook counted as copyright infringeme...
Read Full ArticleChobani Can't Escape Danone's Coffee TM Suit
A New York federal judge on Monday refused to toss Danone's unregistered trademark infringement suit against Chobani over use of the phrase "Bright & Mellow," saying Danone plausibly backed up its arg...
Read Full ArticleVerano Unit Accused Of Infringing Cannabis Extraction Patent
A subsidiary of cannabis giant Verano Holdings LLC was hit with a patent infringement suit in Virginia federal court Monday accusing it of ripping off a California company's pioneering technology usin...
Read Full ArticleConsultant Says Fla. Co., Owner Stole Her Training Model
A linguist claimed in a Florida federal court that the owner of a job consulting business breached their collaboration agreement and stole a training model she developed, alleging she wasn't given equ...
Read Full ArticleCoke Stewart Leaving USPTO to Return to Private Sector
IPWatchdog has learned that U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart sent an email to USPTO executive staff today informing them that she will be leaving the Office...
Read Full ArticleGoogle Can't Get 2nd Try At Eliminating Network-1 Patent
A New York federal judge has denied Google's request for a second attempt at invalidating a patent asserted by a patent licensing company, rejecting its arguments that a Federal Circuit decision from ...
Read Full ArticleYale, Biohaven Win $4M In Biotech Trade Secret Trial
A Delaware federal jury has awarded Yale University and Biohaven Therapeutics $4 million after finding that venture capital firm RA Capital Management GP breached a confidentiality agreement and, alon...
Read Full ArticleProtecting Biotech Innovation In The Platform Knowledge Era
Following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's recent shift toward leveraging prior and platform knowledge in biotechnology, companies should protect their innovations by guarding against obviousne...
Read Full ArticleSamsung Owes $92.3M After Judge Boosts Media IP Award
A Texas federal judge has heaped $13.8 million in prejudgment interest on top of a $78.5 million jury award owed by Samsung after it was found to infringe a pair of patents covering automatic content ...
Read Full ArticleJudges On AI: Examining Administrative, Organizational Uses
U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas examines how artificial intelligence could transform a court's ability to deal with administrative work and organize materials when p...
Read Full ArticleAbbVie Seeks Block On Alkem Generic Constipation Drug
AbbVie Inc. and collaborator Ironwood Pharmaceuticals urged a New Jersey federal court to bar India-based generic-drug maker Alkem Laboratories from selling generic versions of their branded constipat...
Read Full ArticleFRAND at the Pool Level
UK Supreme Court revives Tesla's Avanci pool rate challenge and holds Delaware is not an available forum for setting FRAND terms on UK patents. Continue reading this post on Patently-O....
Read Full ArticleTwo Pages of Testimony: JMOL of Anticipation in Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific
Federal Circuit reverses UT's $42M stent verdict, granting Boston Scientific JMOL of anticipation on a two-page unrebutted expert record. Continue reading this post on Patently-O....
Read Full ArticleCAFC Reverses Infringement Verdict, Finds Patent Owner’s Stent Coating Patent Invalid as Anticipated
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today reversing a jury verdict from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that had found Boston S...
Read Full ArticleAd Patent Claims Against Hulu Are Invalid, Judge Says
A California federal judge has cleared Hulu from a lawsuit accusing it of infringing patents covering ways to deliver content and advertising through streaming, after finding the patents themselves we...
Read Full ArticleCatching Up With Delaware's Chancery Court
The Delaware Chancery Court last week tackled disputes involving restrictive covenants, corporate governance, trade secrets, real estate investments, receiverships, and books and records demands....
Read Full ArticleThe Inventorship Squeeze: Invalidity, Unenforceability, and Why Prosecution Just Got More Expensive
In the space of a few months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts delivered two decisions that, read together, change how pa...
Read Full ArticleNASCAR Says It's 'Overwhelmed' By 'Mass Counterfeiting'
NASCAR is cracking down on counterfeit merchandise in a federal lawsuit filed Monday in North Carolina that seeks to block an alleged network of foreign retailers from selling knockoff clothing and co...
Read Full ArticleStewart Leaving USPTO This Week For Private Sector Job
Deputy U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director Coke Morgan Stewart will leave the office this week to return to the private sector, she told the USPTO executive staff Monday in a message obtained by...
Read Full ArticleEnd Defamation Claim Against Baker Botts Atty, Court Advised
A Florida federal magistrate judge has recommended that a defamation claim against a Baker Botts LLP patent attorney be tossed, saying an inventor hasn't shown that the lawyer's comments to a reporter...
Read Full ArticleArnold & Porter Hires King & Spalding ITC-Focused Atty
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP has hired a King & Spalding LLP partner in Washington, D.C., who will continue his intellectual property work focused on the cross-border aspects of technology and lif...
Read Full ArticleA Cleaner Test Case: Why Kahoot! Adds Fire to the Supreme Court’s Settled Expectations Docket
Kahoot!'s new cert petition joins Google v. VirtaMove in challenging the USPTO's six-year settled expectations basis for denying IPR institution. Continue reading this post on Patently-O....
Read Full ArticleThe Trophy-Sharing Cartel: How Europe’s Digital Markets Act Turns Google’s IP into a Public Utility
Alden Abbott recently captured Europe’s digital-policy contradiction with a memorable image: Brussels says it wants technology champions, but when a champion emerges, it makes the winner share the t...
Read Full ArticlePhillips 66 Inks Deal To End Patent Case Revived By Fed. Circ.
Phillips 66 has settled allegations it infringed Magema Technology's oil refinery patents, reaching a deal nearly a year after the Federal Circuit held that ordered a new trial in the yearslong battle...
Read Full ArticleIP Cases In The Spotlight As ITC Adds 5 New Commissioners
The Senate's confirmation of five new commissioners at the International Trade Commission, including two who were staffers on the intellectual property committees in Congress, could lead to a greater ...
Read Full ArticleOther Barks & Bites for Friday, July 24: FRONTIER Act Introduced in House; Google Hit With €890 Million Fine for DMA Violations; and PTAB Revises SOP 1 on APJ Panel Assignments
This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Second Circuit affirms a ruling that copyright infringement claims against artist Jeff Koons were time-barred; the Federal Circuit reverses-in-part a Section 101 ...
Read Full ArticleCAFC Partially Reverses Ineligibility Ruling on Digital Picture Frame Patents, Reviving Suit Against Amazon
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today affirming in part and reversing in part a district court ruling that had found four patents covering digital picture fr...
Read Full ArticleFederal Circuit Says Expired Patent Warrants Vacatur of ITC Determination
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday granted motions to dismiss as moot two appeals from an International Trade Commission (ITC) determination in which the ITC found Ca...
Read Full ArticleSoftware Keeps Eating the World—But the Right to Repair Doesn’t Have to Go with It
When a farmer buys a tractor that costs a small fortune, who owns it? The instinctive answer is the farmer. And if he owns the tractor, certainly he has the right to fix it, right? Like most things in...
Read Full ArticleECI Innovations, LLC is Seeking an Intellectual Property Partner
ECI Innovations, LLC, a company that designs and licenses financial products, is seeking an experienced intellectual property professional to join the company as a Partner on a part-time, permanent ba...
Read Full ArticleUSPTO Requires Foreign-domiciled Patent Applicants and Owners to Be Represented by USPTO-registered Practitioners
By Donald Zuhn – In a Patent Alert distributed last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reminded stakeholders that beginning on Monday, July 20, patent applicants and owners who are not domic...
Read Full ArticleUSPTO Proposes Rule to Require Statement of RPIs for All Ex Parte Reexam Requests
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today published a Federal Register Notice proposing to amend the rules of practice to require that third-party requests for ex parte reexamination of a pat...
Read Full ArticleReverse Engineering, ‘Readily Ascertainable’, and the Burden of Proof: Lessons from the Comet Technologies Decision
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Comet Technologies USA, Inc. v. XP Power, LLC, overturned Comet Technologies' $40 million trade secret verdict against XP Power and ordered a new tri...
Read Full ArticleFederal Circuit Affirms Dissolution of Preliminary Injunction in Split Decision Over Foldable Fan Design Patent
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today affirming a district court’s dissolution of a preliminary injunction (PI) and denial of a temporary restraining order...
Read Full ArticleExtremity Medical, LLC v. Nextremity Solutions, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
By Kevin E. Noonan – Since the institution of inter parte review (IPR) proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2012, parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board a...
Read Full ArticleAnonymous No More: Real-Party Disclosure Comes to Ex Parte Reexamination
USPTO would require real-party-in-interest disclosure in every third-party ex parte reexamination request, extending the Director's RPI campaign. Continue reading this post on Patently-O....
Read Full ArticleApple Wins at CAFC Due to PTAB’s Erroneous Reading of Speech Recognition Patent Claims
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday vacated and remanded a decision for a patent owner against Apple, concluding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) made seve...
Read Full ArticleSedlik en Banc: A Menu for Replacing Copyright’s Intrinsic Test
The en banc Ninth Circuit weighs five ways to replace copyright's intrinsic test in the Kat Von D tattoo case, Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg. Continue reading this post on Patently-O....
Read Full ArticleSeizing the Secret Sauce: How Generative AI is Breaking Government Contracting and IP Law
As government contractors rapidly integrate LLMs and generative AI into their operations, regulators are scrambling to adapt to shifting data ownership requirements. The General Services Administrat...
Read Full ArticleFederal Circuit Vacates Summary Judgment in Treadmill Patent Dispute, Finding Claim Construction Too Narrow
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Woodway USA, Inc. v. LifeCore Fitness, Inc., vacating a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Lif...
Read Full Article
Locations
USA Cambridge Office
245 First Street 18th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02142
China Shenzhen Office
Dun Huang Mansion, Suite 6C 49 Zi Zhu Liu Road, Zhu Zi Lin, Futian District Shenzhen 518040
Admissions: Admitted in MA, CAFC, and USPTO.
Privacy Policy
Effective Date: January 26, 2026
This Privacy Policy describes how Matthias Scholl (“we,” “us,” or “our”) collects, uses, and protects information obtained through this website (the “Site”).
By using this Site, you consent to the practices described in this Policy.
1. Information We Collect
We may collect the following categories of information:
a. Information You Voluntarily Provide
You may provide personal information to us when you:
- Contact us by email or through the Site
- Submit an inquiry
- Register for an event or mailing list
- Apply for a position
This information may include your name, email address, telephone number, company name, and any information you choose to provide in your message.
b. Automatically Collected Information
When you visit the Site, we may automatically collect:
- IP address
- Browser type and operating system
- Pages viewed and time spent on the Site
- Referring website
This information is collected through cookies and similar technologies for website functionality and analytics.
2. Cookies and Analytics
We use cookies and similar technologies to operate and improve the Site.
We use Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager to:
- Measure site usage
- Understand visitor behavior
- Improve website performance
These tools may collect information such as IP address, browser type, and usage patterns. Google may use this data in accordance with its own privacy policies.
You may disable cookies through your browser settings. Please note that disabling cookies may affect the functionality of the Site.
We do not use cookies for advertising, behavioral profiling, or sale of personal data.
3. How We Use Information
We use information collected through the Site to:
- Respond to inquiries and communications
- Provide legal and professional services
- Operate and improve the Site
- Maintain security and prevent misuse
- Comply with legal and ethical obligations
We do not sell personal information.
4. Disclosure of Information
We may disclose information:
- To service providers assisting in website hosting, analytics, or IT support
- When required by law, court order, or legal process
- To protect the rights, property, or safety of the firm or others
- In connection with a business transaction (e.g., merger or reorganization)
We do not disclose personal information for marketing purposes by third parties.
5. No Attorney–Client Relationship
Use of this Site or submission of information through it does not create an attorney–client relationship. Please do not submit confidential or time-sensitive information unless an attorney–client relationship has been formally established in writing.
6. Data Security
We use reasonable administrative and technical measures to protect personal information. However, no method of transmission over the internet is completely secure, and we cannot guarantee absolute security.
7. Data Retention
We retain personal information only as long as reasonably necessary for legitimate business and legal purposes, including compliance with legal and ethical obligations.
8. External Links
This Site may contain links to third-party websites. We are not responsible for the privacy practices or content of those sites. Please review their privacy policies separately.
9. Changes to This Policy
We may update this Privacy Policy from time to time. Any changes will be posted on this page with an updated effective date. Continued use of the Site constitutes acceptance of the revised policy.
10. Contact Information
If you have questions about this Privacy Policy, you may contact us through the contact information provided on this website.
Legal Disclaimer
The information on this website is provided by Matthias Scholl for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Use of this website does not create an attorney–client relationship. An attorney–client relationship will be formed only through a written engagement agreement.
The materials on this website are not intended to address the circumstances of any particular matter, including patentability, infringement, freedom-to-operate, or other intellectual property issues. You should seek advice from a qualified attorney regarding your specific situation.
Links to third-party websites are provided for convenience only and do not constitute endorsement or approval of their content.
Contacting us by email or through this website does not create an attorney–client relationship. Please do not send confidential or sensitive information unless and until a formal engagement has been established. Electronic communications may not be secure.
If you do not receive a response from us, you should assume that we are unable to represent you and should seek legal counsel elsewhere. For assistance in locating a Massachusetts-admitted attorney, please visit: https://www.massbar.org/public/lawyer-referral-service.
This website may constitute attorney advertising under Massachusetts law. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Matthias Scholl practices law only in jurisdictions in which he is properly admitted or otherwise authorized to practice.