Jeffrey G. Homrig

Silicon Valley
  • 140 Scott Drive
  • Menlo Park, CA 94025
  • USA

As a member of the firm’s global Intellectual Property Practice, Jefferey Homrig has more than 10 years of experience as a trial lawyer, with particular experience in patent cases. Mr. Homrig is currently the Co-chair of the Silicon Valley Litigation & Trial Department.

Mr. Homrig served as a deputy district attorney for Santa Clara County in 2007, lead trial counsel in criminal cases and taking numerous jury and bench trials to verdict.

Mr. Homrig’s pro bono work includes representing veterans and their dependents in cases relating to disability benefits and discrimination.

Thought Leadership
  • Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, 3rd Ed., Menell, Pasahow, Pooley, Powers, Carlson & Homrig (Federal Judicial Center), forthcoming 2015
  • The FJC’s “how-to” guide for federal judges on patent litigation
  • Distributed to all federal judges nationwide
  • Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, 2rd Ed., Menell, Pasahow, Pooley, Powers, Carlson & Homrig (Federal Judicial Center), 2012
  • Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, Menell, et al. (Federal Judicial Center), 2009
  • TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. MotionPoint: As trial counsel for TransPerfect in a multi-patent infringement case in the Northern District of California related to website translation technologies, won a complete jury verdict finding MotionPoint’s three patents invalid and not infringed, TransPerfect’s patent valid and infringed by MotionPoint, and awarding TransPerfect more than US$1 million in damages.  Verdict named by the Daily Journal as  a 2013 Top Plaintiffs' Verdict by Impact.
  • Eolas v. Google et al.*: Trial counsel for Google and YouTube in a Tyler, Texas (E.D. Tx.) patent infringement action in which Eolas and the University of California claimed ownership of the “interactive web.” The jury invalidated all asserted claims after deliberating for just 2.5 hours, defeating claims for hundreds of millions in damages, as well as injunctive relief.
  • Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One: Trial counsel for Capital One in two five-patent infringement actions brought by IV in E.D. Virginia and Maryland.  In the Virginia action, won a complete victory at the district court, culminated by summary judgment invalidating IV’s last two patents under § 101 three weeks before trial.  The Maryland action is currently pending.
  • Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec: Trial counsel for Symantec in a multi-patent case brought by Intellectual Ventures in the US District Court for the District of Delaware. Symantec defeated IV’s US$283 million claim that Symantec’s popular Norton AntiVirus software and other products infringe one of the patents in suit when the jury found non-infringement, and obtained a favorable verdict (capped at 5 percent of total sought) on the ancillary infringement allegations.
  • Jang v. Boston Scientific*: Successfully argued and briefed the appeal in this US$100 million cardiovascular stent litigation on behalf of Dr. G. David Jang after replacing original counsel following an adverse judgment in the district court. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s claim construction, vacated the judgment, and remanded the action to the Central District of California for further proceedings.
  • Apple in numerous matters.* 
  • Intellectual Ventures v. HSBC: Representing HSBC in this five-patent case brought by IV targeting banking technology in the Southern District of New York.
  • Magsil and MIT v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, et al*: Successfully represented Hitachi and Shenzen Excelstor, obtaining summary judgment that the asserted MIT patent is invalid and thereby defeating the plaintiffs’ US$100 million damages claims and request for an injunction against the sale of Hitachi hard drives containing TMR technology. Also represented Hitachi before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in connection with the plaintiffs’ appeal of the invalidity judgment. In August 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that MIT’s patent is is invalid. The win was featured as one of Corporate Counsel's Top 10 IP Litigation Wins of 2011.
  • Convolve v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, et al: Trial counsel for Hitachi in this Eastern District of Texas patent litigation concerning noise reduction technology in disk drives, in which the plaintiff sought nearly US$200 million in damages. Obtained a favorable jury verdict.
  • Droplets v. Yahoo!: Represents Yahoo! in this Northern District of California patent litigation regarding Internet software applications.
  • NovelPoint v. Western Digital and NovelPoint v. HGST: Represented WD and HGST in this E. D. Texas patent litigation involving computer control of peripheral access.
  • MasterObjects v. Google*: Represented Google in this Northern District of California patent case involving AJAX and web search technologies.
  • Eidos v. Skype*: Represented Skype in this District of Delaware patent litigation involving non-contemporaneous communication (i.e., voicemail) technologies.
  • Walker Digital v. Yahoo!, et al.*: Represented Yahoo in two mutli-defendant patent litigations. The cases, both of which are venued in the District of Delaware, involve SmartAds and on-line gaming technologies.

* These clients were represented by Mr. Homrig while he was employed at another law firm.

Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.