Jeffrey G. Homrig

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

Jeff Homrig is a trial lawyer in the Silicon Valley office and a member of the firm’s global Intellectual Property Practice. He is currently Chair of the Silicon Valley Litigation & Trial Department.

Mr. Homrig tries complex and high-stakes intellectual property and commercial cases around the country for some of the world’s most innovative companies. He has deep experience litigating technology cases of all kinds, including those involving patents, trade secrets and contract claims, with particular experience in patent cases. He has defeated billions of dollars in claims against his clients. 

Mr. Homrig has worked with a diverse mix of technologies, including Internet and web-based technologies, data networking equipment and protocols, stents and other medical devices, capillary electrophoresis and biologics, PCR equipment and processes, DVD encoding and manufacturing, data security equipment and protocols, file systems, smartphone technologies, cellular technologies and standards, and others. And he has tried cases across the country, including in state and federal courts in California, Delaware, Texas and the International Trade Commission.

Mr. Homrig is an adjunct lecturer at UC Berkeley School of Law, where he teaches the Patent Litigation II course. He also co-authored the Federal Judicial Center’s how-to guide for federal judges on patent litigation. Mr. Homrig served as a deputy district attorney for Santa Clara County in 2007, where he was lead trial counsel in criminal cases and took numerous jury and bench trials to verdict. His 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, et al. (Federal Judicial Center), 2016

  • The FJC’s “how-to” guide for federal judges on patent litigation
  • Distributed to all federal judges nationwide

Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, 2nd 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.
  • Cisco v. Arista: Trial counsel for Arista in ITC enforcement proceeding relating to patent infringement claims involving switching operating systems and protocols. The enforcement hearing was tried in April 2017 and the parties currently await the determination. Trial counsel in Commission review of follow-on ITC action involving additional patents. Retained for both matters to replace prior counsel after adverse determinations in the underlying ITC matters.
  • Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One: Trial counsel for Capital One in a five-patent infringement action brought by IV in E.D. Virginia. Won a complete victory at the district court, culminated by summary judgment invalidating IV’s last two patents under § 101 three weeks before trial. 
  • Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One (II): Trial counsel for Capital One on antitrust counterclaims arising from a follow-on five-patent infringement action brought by IV in Maryland. Won a complete victory on the patent infringement claims at the district court, culminated by summary judgment invalidating four of IV’s asserted patents under § 101. Capital One’s antitrust counterclaims against IV are proceeding toward trial.
  • 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. Post-trial, won invalidity of all three patents-in-suit under § 101.
  • Nanoexa v. Envia: Trial counsel for Envia in this trade secret matter involving EV battery technology. Settled on favorable terms just before jury selection.
  • 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: Represented HSBC in this five-patent case brought by IV targeting banking technology in the Southern District of New York. Dismissed on favorable terms following adverse rulings against IV.
  • Magsil and MIT v. Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, et al*: Successfully represented Hitachi and Shenzhen 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 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.