IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Matthew Kinnier Image

Matthew Kinnier

is a Senior Associate with Hoffman Warnick. Matthew’s practice focuses on domestic and international patent and trademark applications, and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings. In patent law, Matt helps clients obtain patents across a wide span of technology areas including power generation systems, semiconductor processing, software systems and applications, manufacturing and testing equipment, control systems, business methods, integrated rehabilitative systems, and consumer products. Matt also counsels clients through the process of registering and expanding trademark portfolios, in addition to opposing deceptively similar trademarks sought by their competitors. Matt is dedicated to learning the goals and challenges with each client’s underlying business strategy, and prioritizes responsiveness and thoroughness to help clients navigate the ever-changing intellectual property landscape.

For more information or to contact Matthew, please visit his Firm Profile Page.

Recent Articles by Matthew Kinnier

Breadth through Specificity: Supporting Alternative Embodiments with Multiple Examples in Patent Applications

Two recent cases, The Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc and Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc., illustrate that the patentee’s specification is key to determining whether an alleged infringer has practiced an alternative embodiment or a non-infringing invention… The specifications at issue in Skedco and Medicines took different approaches to the phrasing of example components, and thus led to different results against infringers. The CAFC in Skedco used several example embodiments in the specification to find infringement by a competitor who practiced the invention differently, yet consistent with the available examples. In contrast, the CAFC in Medicines found no infringement by a competitor who practiced a similar process due to a lack of examples and permissive language in the Specification. Through these cases, the CAFC provides two practices for broadening the possible construction of a patent’s claims.