Jeffrey G. Homrig

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

Jeff Homrig, an experienced trial lawyer, handles complex and high-stakes intellectual property and commercial cases around the country for some of the world’s most innovative technology and life sciences companies. He serves as Chair of the Silicon Valley Litigation & Trial Department.

Mr. Homrig represents plaintiffs and defendants in a range of intellectual property disputes, including patent, trade secret, and contract-based matters.
He provides pragmatic and practical advice to help clients steer clear of intellectual property problems and navigate them safely when they do arise. He has protected the rights of innovators in a diverse mix of technology, life science, and medical device matters.

Mr. Homrig has a demonstrated ability to translate complex technological issues into core themes that persuade juries. He regularly tries cases across the country, including in state and federal courts in California, Delaware, Texas, and before the International Trade Commission (ITC).

Academic and Public Service

Mr. Homrig is an adjunct lecturer at Berkeley Law, teaching the Patent Litigation II course. He co-authors the Federal Judicial Center’s definitive how-to guide for federal judges on patent litigation, which is now in its third edition.

He served as a deputy district attorney for Santa Clara County in 2007, trying numerous criminal cases to verdict.

Mr. Homrig’s notable representations include:

Patent Matters

  • Cisco v. Arista: Trial counsel for Arista in an ITC enforcement proceeding relating to patent infringement claims involving switching operating systems and protocols. The enforcement hearing in April 2017 resulted in finding of non-infringement, saving the company hundreds of millions in fines and potentially billions in sales. Trial counsel in follow-on ITC action involving additional patents, secured non-infringement finding. Retained for both matters to replace prior counsel after adverse determinations in the underlying ITC matters.
  • Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec: Trial counsel for Symantec in a multi-patent case brought by Intellectual Ventures in Delaware. Secured non-infringement jury verdict and post-trial invalidity judgment.
  • TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. MotionPoint: Trial counsel for TransPerfect in a multi-patent infringement case in 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. The Daily Journal named the case a Top Plaintiffs’ Verdict by Impact.
  • Eolas v. Google et al.: Trial counsel for Google and YouTube in a Texas 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 only 2.5 hours, defeating claims for hundreds of millions in damages and injunctive relief.*

Trade Secret Matters

  • Nanoexa v. Envia: Lead trial counsel for Envia in a trade secret matter involving lithium ion battery technology for electric vehicles. Settled on favorable terms.
  • Confidential matters: Represents several clients in ongoing matters, investigating theft of their trade secrets relating to banking, networking, and security-related innovations.

Contract Matters

  • Jang v. Boston Scientific: Argued, briefed, and won the appeal in a US$100 million cardiovascular stent breach-of-contract litigation on behalf of Dr. G. David Jang. Replaced original counsel following an adverse judgment in the district court.*

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham

 
 
 
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.