WSGR logoWSGR logo
Matthew A. Argenti
Partner
Litigation
Palo Alto

D650-354-4154

Download vCard
Open PDF
  • PTAB Expertise

    Matt represents petitioners and patent owners in contested, post-grant review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and corresponding appeals to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

  • A Recognized Practitioner

    Routinely ranked as one of the most active PTAB practitioners, Matt was recognized as among the Top 15 best performing PTAB attorneys overall (representing petitioners and patent owners) in Patexia’s 2024 PTAB Intelligence Report and was named the No. 1 best performing attorney on behalf of patent owners in Patexia’s 2021 IPR Intelligence Report.

  • Patent Litigation Experience

    Matt has represented parties in patent litigation across a wide spectrum of technologies ranging from network security and anti-malware software to pharmaceuticals.  He has contributed to trial team victories in district court and at the International Trade Commission, including preparing, defending, and cross-examining expert witnesses.   

  • Federal Circuit Practice

    Matt represents parties in appeals to the Federal Circuit, stemming from PTAB proceedings, district court litigation, and International Trade Commission investigations.  Matt has served as lead counsel in numerous appeals and combines in-depth understanding of the technical issues underlying a decision on appeal with strategic considerations for developing winning appeal arguments.

Matthew (Matt) Argenti is a partner in the Palo Alto office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, where he primarily focuses on patent litigation with an emphasis on post-grant review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He represents both petitioners and patent owners in contested proceedings under the America Invents Act, including inter partes reviews, covered business method reviews, and appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In addition, Matt has extensive experience litigating patent cases in federal courts and before the International Trade Commission. His work has involved a variety of technology areas, including computer networking, anti-virus software, telecommunications, consumer wiring devices, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and semiconductors. Prior to attending law school, Matt worked in the memory products division of Cypress Semiconductor.

Experience

Matthew (Matt) Argenti is a partner in the Palo Alto office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, where he primarily focuses on patent litigation with an emphasis on post-grant review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He represents both petitioners and patent owners in contested proceedings under the America Invents Act, including inter partes reviews, covered business method reviews, and appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In addition, Matt has extensive experience litigating patent cases in federal courts and before the International Trade Commission. His work has involved a variety of technology areas, including computer networking, anti-virus software, telecommunications, consumer wiring devices, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and semiconductors. Prior to attending law school, Matt worked in the memory products division of Cypress Semiconductor.

Focus Areas
Recent Insights
Newsletters
The PTAB Review – January 2026
The January 2026 issue of The PTAB Review discusses notable developments at the PTAB, including changes to institution procedures, and precedential and informative decisions, explores several appellate decisions relevant to PTAB trials, and examines potential rule changes submitted for comment.
Learn More
Alerts
Patent Office Denial of “Late” Inter Partes Review Petitions Changes Expectations
On June 6, 2025, the acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a decision in iRhythm Technologies v. Welch Allyn, Inc.1 that initiates a new basis for discretionary denial of inter partes review (IPR) petitions. The Director denied institution of iRhythm’s IPR petitions because iRhythm had upset Welch Allyn’s settled expectations in the enjoyment of its patents. iRhythm is the first such IPR discretionary denial and raises questions about the scope of this new doctrine and its congruence with judicial and congressional developments.
Learn More
View All
WSGR logo
Copyright © 2026 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. All Rights Reserved.