Biography

Matthew Fischer’s practice involves intellectual property, data privacy, media and complex commercial litigation.  Mr. Fischer co-chairs the firm's Privacy and Data Protection Group.

Mr. Fischer litigates and resolves trademark infringement, dilution, unfair competition and false advertising claims, including Internet and domain name disputes.  Mr. Fischer also litigates copyright and patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation matters, incluing software, technology and Internet-related agreements and issues.  He has represented a variety of companies in commercial disputes involving technology issues, defamation claims and data privacy issues, as well as litigating numerous contract, partnership and other business disputes. 

Mr. Fischer manages companies’ domestic and international trademark portfolios.  As part of that practice, he counsels clients on intellectual property selection, strategic management of trademark and copyright assets, trademark and copyright registration, enforcement and licensing, clearing new marks and avoiding infringing the rights of others.  

He advises clients regarding their privacy policies and compliance with U.S. federal and state privacy and information laws, including GLB, HIPAA/HITECH, COPPA, the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, the Federal Information Security Management Act and other federal and state requirements, as well as compliance with international data protection laws and data transfer requirements, including EU directives and U.S. Safe Harbor requirements.  He counsels clients on data breach responses and state and federal security breach notification laws. 

Representative Matters

Mr. Fischer has successfully litigated or resolved numerous intellectual property, media and complex commercial actions in both state and federal court.  He has obtained favorable verdicts for clients in arbitrations and both judge and jury trials.

Some of Mr. Fischer’s intellectual property successes have included: obtaining the dismissal of a trademark infringement claim and a domain name dispute based on the genericness of the asserted mark; successfully resolving a  trademark infringement and dilution lawsuit by negotiating an agreement allowing his media client to continue its use of the disputed mark; obtaining the dismissal of a trademark infringement claim regarding digital photography equipment; favorably settling claims for the misappropriation of numerous asserted trade secrets involving animal biologics; settling claims of copyright and trademark infringement of aviation-related software in which the client paid nothing; defending a distributor of home decorative accessories against claims of copyright and design patent infringement and; favorably resolving claims of trademark infringement and counterfeit labeling against a cosmetics company.

In a breach of contract case in which the plaintiff sought over $10 million in damages for technology maintenance and support services for a state-wide technology system, Mr. Fischer negotiated a stipulation for limited discovery which led to a settlement of the lawsuit for a diminutive fraction of the asserted claim.

Published Opinions

• Closed Loop Marketing, Inc. v. Closed Loop Marketing, LLC, 589 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (order denying plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and granting defendant’s motion to dismiss claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment).
• Clayworth, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 209 (2008) (affirming summary judgment based on the pass-on defense, an issue of first impression under California law), review granted by No. S166435 2008 WL 5087964 (Cal. Nov. 19, 2008). 
• County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc., 540 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2008)(reversing as to breach of third party beneficiary contact claim), 428 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2006)(dismissing breach of third party contract, unfair competition, False Claims Act and other causes of action).
• Tate v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 230 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (N.D. Cal 2002).

Affiliations, Activities & Accomplishments

Mr. Fischer is a member of the American Bar Association, including the Intellectual Property and Litigation sections, the California Bar Association, including the Intellectual Property and Antitrust Unfair Competition Law sections, and the Bar Association of San Francisco.  Mr. Fischer is admitted to practice in all state and district courts in California.

Publications

In addition to the below publications, Mr. Fischer is a regular contributor to Sedgwick’s Digital Media Law Blog, which provides topical information and analysis on various digital media and data privacy issues.

• “State and Federal Prevention Efforts and the California Supply Chain Transparency Act,” panelist, LexisNexis Webinar, September 27, 2012
• “Digital Media 911: Covering Your Legal Backside in the Age of Online Advertising and Social Media,” speaker, Entrepreneurs Organization Guru Session, September 20, 2012
• “Mobile Data Collection,” chapter author, 2012 Practically Pocket Sized Treatise on Internet Law, February 2012.
• “FTC Privacy Enforcement Targets ScanScout’s Failure to Toss Its Cookies,” Sedgwick’s Media Law Bulletin, December 2011
• “Trademark Infringement Claims Based on Nominative Use Get Boost from Circuit Court Ruling,” co-author, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, August 2011
• “Critical Privacy Issues: Best Practices for Navigating the Legal Landscape and Minimizing Risk,” speaker, San Francisco & Chicago Sedgwick Seminar Series, 2011
• “Federal Data Privacy Legislation on the Horizon,” ABA/TIPS Media, Privacy and Defamation Newsletter, Spring 2011
• “Data Privacy and How to Stay Ahead of the Curve,” Sedgwick’s Media Law Bulletin, March 2011
• “IP Litigation Strategies in the Context of Current Trends,” Inside Minds: Litigation Strategies for Intellectual Property Cases, Aspatore Books, Thomson Reuters Publishing, 2010
• “Ashcroft v. Iqbal: The Supreme Court’s Attempt to Clarify Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,” The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Vol. 18, No. 2 Fall 2009
• “Hospitals Can't Use Inpatient Services Monopoly To Contract for Exclusive to Preferred Provider Status for Outpatient Facility,” Sedgwick’s Healthcare Law Newsletter, Spring 2009