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.
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
1612
Granted U.S. Patents
582
Clients Worldwide
131
Patents for Largest Client
2.54
Average Patents per Client
2001-03-15
Earliest Filing Date
2006-03-21
Earliest Issue Date
2026-05-26
Most Recent Issue Date
4.37
Fastest Pendency (months)
27.11
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
1st Circ. Revives Ricky Martin Song Suit Over Discovery Issue
A split First Circuit panel Friday vacated a lower court's ruling in favor of Ricky Martin in a long-running copyright dispute over the pop star's 2014 FIFA World Cup song, finding the district court ...
Read Full ArticleGoogle Sues Phishing Ring Over Using AI To Build Scam Sites
Google sued a Chinese cybercrime operation in New York federal court Friday, alleging the group has created "plug-and-play" phishing software that uses Google's Gemini and other artificial intelligenc...
Read Full ArticleX Corp. Says Music Publishers' Copyright Case Must Be Axed
X Corp. asked a Tennessee federal court to throw out a copyright infringement suit brought by music publishers, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected the notion that an online provider can ...
Read Full ArticlePTAB Again Invalidates Centripetal Patent In Cisco Case
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has again found that a Centripetal Networks cybersecurity patent that was part of a since-vacated multibillion-dollar judgment against Cisco Systems is invalid as obv...
Read Full ArticleCaterpillar Says Startup Ripped Off Autonomy Tech Patents
Construction equipment giant Caterpillar has accused an autonomous solutions startup of ripping off several of its patents for autonomous technologies, saying in a complaint filed in Delaware federal ...
Read Full Article9th Circ. Tells Serial Litigant App Developer No More
The Ninth Circuit has said it does not want to hear any more from a serial litigant who has a bone to pick with tech behemoth Apple and a California federal court over the exclusion of an application ...
Read Full ArticleJury Tells Amgen To Pay $20.2M In Antibody Patent Trial
A Delaware federal jury decided Friday that Amgen Inc. and its Teneobio Inc. unit willfully infringed a mouse antibody patent asserted by Harbour Antibodies BV and others, and should pay $20.2 million...
Read Full ArticleUpper Deck Beats Game Co.'s Bid For $4M Fees After IP Loss
A Washington federal judge on Thursday denied a bid from toymaker Ravensburger and a game designer for $3.8 million in legal fees after the court mostly sided with them in Upper Deck's copyright case ...
Read Full Article4 Key Takeaways From 3rd Circ. Arguments Over AI Training
The Third Circuit's first major encounter with artificial intelligence and fair use did not turn on futuristic hypotheticals, with a three-judge panel instead posing questions that have long defined c...
Read Full ArticleInsta360 Hits Back At Drone Giant DJI With Patent Suits
Insta360 hit drone and camera maker DJI Technology Co. in the Eastern District of Texas Thursday with two suits asserting infringement of its camera patents, one day after DJI filed suits of its own a...
Read Full ArticleFact-Checking the Assertions of the Parties in Hyatt v. Squires
Gilbert Hyatt is a prolific independent inventor known for his large number of patent applications held up for decades at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the courts. In its decisions ...
Read Full ArticlePTAB Cites Oscar, Emmy In Upholding Zaxcom Recording IP
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has declined to invalidate claims in Zaxcom Inc.'s patents covering technology for wireless audio recording, finding that Academy and Emmy awards that Zaxcom received...
Read Full ArticlePatent Ruling Highlights Risks Of Late Inventorship Fixes
The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Implicit v. Sonos demonstrates the risk of forfeiture with retroactive correction of inventorship in inter partes review proceedings, with a clear message to t...
Read Full ArticleChinese E-Bike Seller Agrees To Stop Using UL Seal
A Chinese company that sells electric scooters and e-bikes via Amazon has agreed to a permanent injunction against it using the logo of product safety organization UL to falsely promote its products...
Read Full ArticleOther Barks & Bites for Friday, June 12: Republican Lawmakers Urge USITC to Block TSMC Chips; Bipartisan Bill Targets Digital Platform Abuses; and Most EU Consumers Would Pay More
This week in Other Barks & Bites: Senators Chuck Grassley and Amy Klobuchar introduced the American Innovation and Choice Online Act into Congress; the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office waived the peti...
Read Full ArticleInterDigital Patent Suit Against Disney Paused For Dolby Feud
A California federal judge has paused a patent infringement suit brought by wireless technology outfit InterDigital Inc. against The Walt Disney Co. while letting play out a dispute involving a reques...
Read Full ArticleWomen's Clothing Co. Wins Part Of Textile Patterns Suit
Women's clothing brand Jude Connally was granted a win on some of the issues in a copyright infringement case brought by a textile company that alleged its protected patterns were being copied....
Read Full ArticleAtty Faces Sanctions Over Fake Quotes In Taco TM Fight
A Connecticut attorney could be sanctioned for including fake case quotes and misrepresentations of the law in court filings that seek dismissal of a trademark case against a taco restaurant, a federa...
Read Full ArticleAdjusting IPR Tactics As Google Fights 'Settled Expectations'
Google’s petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to scrutinize the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's so-called settled expectations practice underscores why accused infringers facing older asserted patent...
Read Full ArticleSalesforce Dodges Full Fed. Circ. Review Of IP Win
Consulting firm Applications in Internet Time LLC has failed to persuade the full Federal Circuit to revive its patent infringement suit against Salesforce Inc....
Read Full ArticleJury Rejects Nielsen's TV Audience IP Case Against TVision
A Delaware federal jury has cleared TVision Insights Inc. from claims by The Nielsen Co. that it infringed a patent covering audio recognition software with its products for getting data on TV audienc...
Read Full ArticleUK Litigation Roundup: Here's What You Missed In London
The past week in London has seen the FCA bring a claim against a fund manager it accused of providing investment services despite having been banned, an Ardmore unit sue a contractor two days before t...
Read Full ArticleWitnessing the Miracle of Innovation in Real Time
Many of us have spent our careers defending and promoting our patent system and related policies like the Bayh-Dole Act, which injected the authorities and incentives of patent ownership into the fede...
Read Full ArticleCAFC Affirms Dismissal of Infringement Case Against Bank of America
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a district court’s order dismissing a claim of patent infringement brought by Dynapass against Bank of America. Chief Ju...
Read Full ArticleIt’s Not You, It’s Your Claims: Disclosed but Unclaimed Embodiments at the Federal Circuit
Federal Circuit: receiving a passcode and token separately is not receiving the password. Dynapass v. BofA and the unclaimed embodiment. Continue reading this post on Patently-O....
Read Full ArticleProhibiting Adversarial Patents Act Would Limit Patent Rights of National Security-Designated Entities
U.S. House Republicans recently introduced legislation that would prohibit entities on federal national security watchlists from receiving or enforcing U.S. patents. The Council for Innovation Promoti...
Read Full ArticleHikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. (2026)
By Kevin E. Noonan – In a decision that, in retrospect, is not surprising (in view of the haste with which the Court took up the case after granting certiorari; see “Solicitor General Proves Persu...
Read Full ArticleTrading Claims for Speed: USPTO Sweetens the Streamlined Claim Set Pilot
USPTO waives the petition fee for its Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program, offering free expedited first Office actions for lean claim sets. Continue reading this post on Patently-O....
Read Full ArticleIPWatchdog Patent Masters Urge Stakeholders to Unite for Change in the Next Cycle of U.S. Patent Reform
IPWatchdog’s 2026 Patent Masters Program kicked off Monday with discussions on the state of the international patent landscape and the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in creating efficiency gai...
Read Full ArticleThe Register of Copyrights Is Wrong About Cox v. Sony
At a recent Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing, Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter noted that Congress may need to overturn this year’s unanimous decision in the Cox v. Sony Supreme Court ca...
Read Full ArticleArbitrator Rules USPTO Violated Federal Labor Law by Eliminating Non-Patents Employee Telework Without Bargaining
On Monday, an arbitrator issued an order finding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) violated federal labor law when it eliminated routine and remote telework for non-Patents bargaining ...
Read Full ArticleFederal Circuit Reverses PTAB Findings of Unpatentability for Google’s ‘Hotword’ Patents
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday reversed and remanded two Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions that had found Google’s patents for improvements to “hotword...
Read Full ArticleThe AI Arms Race Runs Through the Patent System | IPWatchdog Unleashed
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke with Rama Elluru, a former PTAB Judge turned national security policy advisor. We explore the accelerating intersection of AI, patent law, and national compe...
Read Full ArticleFederal Circuit Affirms PTAB Obviousness Rejection of Automated Kitchen System Patent Application
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Zhengxu He, affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding an examiner’s rejection of c...
Read Full ArticleEnforceable, but Not Reviewable: A Breached Sotera Stipulation and § 314(d)
Hafeman v. Google: the Federal Circuit holds a breached Sotera stipulation is unreviewable under Section 314(d), leaving a one-sided trap. Continue reading this post on Patently-O....
Read Full ArticleCAFC Reverses EDTX Infringement and Damages Rulings, Upholds Denial of JMOL on Section 101
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee Technologies ULC vacating judgments entered by the Eastern Dis...
Read Full ArticleSix Petitions, Six Placeholders: The Patent Docket Awaiting the Supreme Court
A case-by-case look at the dozen patent petitions and applications pending at the Supreme Court, from settled expectations to prosecution laches. Continue reading this post on Patently-O....
Read Full ArticlePatents Don’t Monetize Themselves: Turning Portfolios from Cost Centers into Revenue Assets
Imagine a company spends millions of dollars constructing a new office building in a prime downtown location. The company pays for maintenance, utilities, insurance, landscaping, repairs, security, an...
Read Full ArticleAutomating the Patent Process at the USPTO to Save Inventors Money
Have you ever drafted a claim set with a second claim that began, “the system of claim 2, wherein…” when you meant to write “the system of claim 1”? It’s embarrassing because every first-y...
Read Full ArticleCAFC Rejects Inventor’s Sotera Stipulation Challenge against LG, Affirms Google and Microsoft Win at PTAB
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday in Hafeman v. Google LLC affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions (FWDs) in...
Read Full ArticleIntegrity Versus Repose: When Claim Preclusion Bars Fraud on the Court
The Eleventh Circuit holds res judicata bars a patent-rooted fraud-on-the-court claim, even as Capital Security readies a Supreme Court petition. Continue reading this post on Patently-O....
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.