Matthew Hurley

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Matthew C. Hurley — Member, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. (Boston)

Specialty / focus. Hurley chairs Mintz's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice and previously served as Section Manager of the firm's IP Section (managing 115+ attorneys and technology specialists). His practice description centers on life sciences and technology companies in complex business and IP disputes, with particular emphasis on domestic and international arbitration involving collaboration agreements, patent licenses, supplier agreements, and distribution contracts, alongside patent, trademark, and copyright litigation more broadly. Named clients have included Fresenius Medical Care, Raytheon, Bose, Jabil Circuits, and CAT Global Mining. The one tracked patent case is in the consumer vaporizer/e-cigarette technology space rather than a standards-based or NPE docket.

Side preference. The tracked data is thin — a single appearance, on the plaintiff side — so it does not support a reliable plaintiff/defendant profile. His verified record is genuinely mixed: he has represented patent owners and complainants (Juul Labs as plaintiff/complainant) and has also secured defense wins, including summary judgment for General Electric in a fluorescent-lighting patent case applying the Kessler doctrine (CFL Technologies LLC v. General Electric Co., No. 18-1444-RGA (D. Del. 2022)). Nothing suggests a PAE/NPE-focused practice; his clients are operating companies.

Firm context. Hurley has been at Mintz throughout his tracked patent litigation career; no prior firm is identified in the sources reviewed. Before law school he worked as a technology consultant and application architect for a Boston-area technology company. He is not identified as an in-house attorney.

Notable cases and outcomes. The tracked matter, Juul Labs Inc. v. Altria et al., corresponds to JUUL Labs, Inc. v. NJOY, LLC, NJOY Holdings, Inc., Altria Group, Inc., Altria Group Distribution Co. and Altria Client Services LLC, No. 2:25-cv-02853-JTT (D. Ariz.), with a parallel ITC investigation, Certain Vaporizer Devices, Cartridges Used Therewith, and Components Thereof (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-1460, in which Hurley appeared for complainant Juul at the January 2026 Markman hearing. He was also part of the Mintz trial team in the earlier, related ITC defense, Inv. No. 337-TA-1372, where Juul was accused by Altria's NJOY subsidiary: the ALJ found no infringement and the full Commission affirmed on March 3, 2025, declining to issue an exclusion order — a result recognized by The Am Law Litigation Daily. His broader docket includes numerous arbitration wins for life sciences clients (including a nine-figure ICC award and a unanimous defense award in a $42 million JAMS collaboration dispute).

PTAB / IPR. No verified record shows Hurley as counsel of record in an IPR or PGR; in the Juul-related PTAB filings reviewed (e.g., IPR2024-00160, IPR2026-00161), Mintz's lead and back-up counsel are other attorneys. He has written on PTAB and post-grant practice (including the USPTO's patent-agent privilege rule) and on IP arbitration and SEP dispute resolution.

Bar / education (as sourced). B.A., College of the Holy Cross (1989); J.D., Fordham University School of Law (1996). Admitted in New Jersey (1996), District of Columbia (1998), and Massachusetts (2000), with admissions before the U.S. Supreme Court and the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits (per Martindale-Hubbell). No USPTO registration number was located, so patent-bar status is unconfirmed.

Caveat: the sources combine professional credentials only; statistical statements about side preference rest on a single tracked case and should be treated as directional, not established.