A. Matthew Ashley

NEWPORT BEACH - Matthew Ashley focuses his practice as an Irell & Manella LLP partner on high stakes business litigation. He's been with the firm since he joined as a summer associate in 1997, straight out of Yale Law School.

"I was on the East Coast, but I wanted to be in California, so I did several on-campus interviews," he said. "I liked Irell's small firm feel and its national presence." Representing Fortress Investment Group LLC, accused by Intel Corp. and others of engaging in an anti-competitive patent aggregation scheme, Ashley and his team obtained a sweeping defense victory that was the subject of both a Daily Journal Top Defense Verdict and a 2022 CLAY Award.

Intel Corp. et al. v. Fortress Investment Group LLC et al., 3:19-cv 07651 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2019). Intel and its initial co-plaintiff Apple Inc. alleged that Fortress aggregated so many patents that it could dominate certain markets, charge supra-competitive licensing fees and bring repeated aggressive lawsuits in search of jackpot wins.

"Fine, but you have to have the facts to back up your theory," Ashley said after winning motions to dismiss by U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen of San Francisco. In his order, Chen wrote that Intel "failed to allege that supra competitive pricing was a result of patent aggregation." Apple dropped its claims in 2021. A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Panel affirmed Chen in November 2022.

"The complaint was very long, but you have to plead facts, not conclusions dressed up in antitrust language. Where was the evidence?" Ashley said.

The litigation was closely watched and its outcome considered significant because it tested a novel patent aggregation theory that, if it had succeeded, could have subjected patentees to expanded antitrust liability for attempting to license or litigate their patents, Ashley said. The case also tested the pleading burdens required of antitrust plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs were determined and backed by a lot of amici, Ashley said. "There was a lot of strong feeling by Intel and Apple regarding a defendant company that doesn't have products." Intel used the phrase "patent assertion entities" to describe Fortress and its associated Fortress Credit Co. LLC and VLSI Technology LLC. "Some use the word troll to castigate them," Ashley said.

In a securities fraud class action, Ashley led the team that obtained a precedent-setting published 9th Circuit opinion affirming dismissal. The plaintiff contended that Uber Technologies, Inc. made false or misleading statements about alleged high-profile company scandals that negatively impacted investors and cost them tens of billions of dollars. Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., 19-16667 (9th Cir., op. filed May 19, 2021).

The circuit panel agreed with Ashley's argument that the plaintiff had failed to plead loss causation because it did not specifically tie any alleged misstatement to a drop in Uber's stock price. The opinion was the first to address the causation pleading requirement for claims asserted in federal court under California's market manipulation statute.

As the case launched, Ashley and colleagues obtained a stay of discovery pending resolution of the defense motion to dismiss -- a stay rarely granted in cases brought under California state law.

Ashley said the CLAY and Top Verdict awards in the Fortress case were a welcome surprise. "It was unexpected. But this was a breakthrough case at the forefront of current IP law as it intersects with antitrust law."