Matthew Hopkins

I'll research this attorney's background before drafting. Note there may be multiple attorneys named Matthew Hopkins, so I'll disambiguate carefully.

Now let me verify the tracked cases and any notable outcomes.

Let me verify Micron's defense counsel and the Microsoft v. Lemko district court matter.

Matthew Hopkins — Winston & Strawn (Washington, DC)

Hopkins's patent practice centers on electrical engineering and computer technology: memory modules (LRDIMM/RDIMM), Wi-Fi and cellular standards (3G/4G/LTE/5G), video compression (H.264), mobile geofencing and networking, plus some medical-device work (spinal cord stimulators). Winston & Strawn's own biography describes him as handling complex patent litigation and USPTO post-grant proceedings in consumer electronics, information technology and medical devices, and notes he has experience at all stages of litigation through trial. His technical foundation is a B.S. in electrical and computer engineering from Florida Institute of Technology (2008).

He is primarily a defense-side litigator — consistent with the tracked list, which shows four defendant-side and two plaintiff-side appearances — though the firm bio confirms meaningful plaintiff-side experience as well. He does not fit an NPE/PAE monetization profile; his operating-company work is concentrated in defending technology manufacturers. All six tracked appearances are at Winston & Strawn, which appears to be his only firm since leaving the USPTO; his prior professional experience was roughly eight years at the USPTO, where he served as a patent examiner (computer networking, mobile communications, video compression) and completed details at the PTAB and the Office of the Solicitor. No earlier law firm is identifiable from public sources.

His most prominent tracked matters are the Netlist/Micron memory-module disputes and the Microsoft/Affirmed Networks challenge to Lemko's distributed mobile architecture patents. He is listed on Micron's defense team in the Eastern District of Texas Netlist litigation (e.g., Nos. 2:22-cv-203 and 2:22-cv-294, Judge Gilstrap), which produced a May 2024 jury verdict of $445 million against Micron for willful infringement; the district court denied Micron's post-trial motions in June 2025. He also appears for Micron in the related Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc. matter. In the Lemko matter he was lead counsel for petitioners Microsoft/Affirmed Networks in IPR2023-00529 concerning U.S. Patent 7,653,414, and the PTAB's invalidity findings were upheld on appeal (Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 24-2336 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2026) (Rule 36)). His PTAB/IPR work is therefore a genuine practice component, not incidental, and he is a member of the PTAB Bar Association.

Admissions: District of Columbia, New Jersey, and registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Reg. No. 76,273); J.D., with honors, George Washington University Law School (2016). Two of the six tracked matters in the source list are unidentified (captioned only as "Untitled case"), so the full scope of his docket cannot be independently verified.