Matthew D. Skipper

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Professional Summary — Matthew D. Skipper

Specialty / focus. The single tracked matter places Mr. Skipper in consumer-display electronics litigation. The underlying dispute — Bishop Display Tech LLC v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., Nos. 2:25-cv-00309 and 2:25-cv-00310 (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap, filed Mar. 20, 2025, consolidated Aug. 27, 2025) — involves LCD panel structure (array/opposing substrates, pixel electrode-and-wiring layers, reflective backlight layers) and display driver circuitry, asserted under U.S. Patent Nos. 7,583,347, 7,414,682 and 7,995,047. The complaint accuses more than 800 BOE display products and names OEM customers (Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, Asus) in the distribution-chain allegations. Nothing in the record indicates Wi-Fi/SEP, pharmaceutical, software, or mechanical practice.

Side preference. The tracked data show one appearance, on the defendant side, as lead counsel — i.e., defense of a large operating company (BOE, a global display-panel manufacturer) against a patent-assertion entity (Bishop Display Tech LLC). A single data point supports no inference about a general plaintiff/defense mix; the sample is far too small to characterize him as either a repeat defense counsel or a claimant-side filer. Note one caution: the case caption supplied matches the PTAB caption BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Bishop Display Tech LLC (IPR2025-01330/-01331), in which BOE is the petitioner. The same parties are simultaneously in district-court defense and PTAB-challenge postures, so the practical position may be defense-plus-IPR rather than purely defendant-side, and the "defendant" label may reflect the district-court docket.

Firm context. Skipper Law is the only listed firm. I was unable to locate a verifiable public profile for the firm or for Mr. Skipper himself — no firm website, state-bar profile, Law360, Reuters Legal, or Justia entry surfaced in searching. Prior firm history and any in-house role are therefore unverified and should not be assumed. (This also leaves open the ordinary name-disambiguation risk; no other attorney of this name was identified in patent practice either.)

Notable case activity and PTAB. The most concrete verified development is procedural: Judge Gilstrap denied Bishop Display's motion to dismiss on Aug. 27, 2025, and consolidated the two E.D. Tex. actions for pretrial purposes under No. 2:25-cv-00310 as lead case, with the cases remaining active for trial. BOE separately filed IPR petitions in July 2025 (IPR2025-01330, IPR2025-01331) challenging the '047 patent (current-driving display device) and related claims over Baek, Date, Sasaki and other references; BOE is also pressing invalidity contentions in the district court. Whether Skipper Law is counsel of record in those IPRs is not confirmed by any source I located. No verdicts, settlements, or Federal Circuit decisions involving Mr. Skipper were found.

Bar / education. Not reliably sourced; omitted.

Verification caveat: With one tracked appearance and no locatable public professional profile, this summary rests almost entirely on the docket record in the BOE/Bishop Display matters. Confirm counsel-of-record entries on PACER and PTAB E2E before relying on any characterization of his practice mix beyond this case.