Geoffrey K.Gavin

Of Counsel

Atlanta + 1.404.581.8646

Contact

Partager

With more than 20 years of experience, Geoffrey Gavin advises clients on important IP matters, including patent litigation, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) litigation, trade secret litigation, and strategic IP counseling. He has experience with numerous technologies across a wide variety of industries, including wireless telecommunications, data encryption and computer security, bioelectronics, semiconductors, printers, LED lighting, automotive products, medical devices, and video and image processing.

Geoffrey has represented clients in significant patent litigation matters in district courts throughout the country and at the International Trade Commission (ITC). Recent engagements include securing a defense victory in a 19-patent case that included an award of attorneys' fees and an "exceptional case" finding in favor of the client, as well as competitor patent litigations related to semiconductor technology and tobacco heating and vaping products. Geoffrey also represents patent owners and challengers in post-grant proceedings before the PTAB. He led a team that successfully defended multiple patents on LED downlights against inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by a competitor. In another engagement, he led a team that used IPR proceedings to invalidate claims in three patents asserted by Intellectual Ventures against several aspects of the client's online banking operations.

The Best Lawyers in America has twice named Geoffrey as a "Lawyer of the Year" for Atlanta, for IP litigation in 2022 and again for patent litigation in 2024. He is active in the Honorable Charles A. Pannell Jr. Intellectual Property American Inn of Court and a member of IPO's Post-Grant Patent Office Practice Committee.

Expérience

  • R.J. Reynolds successfully enforces patents in ITC trial against Philip Morris in dispute over cigarette alternativeJones Day's client Reynolds achieved a precedent-setting victory before the International Trade Commission (ITC) against its main competitors Philip Morris Products S.A. ("Philip Morris") and Altria Client Services LLC ("Altria") in a patent infringement dispute involving tobacco heating and vaping products.
  • Ricoh awarded attorneys' fees after Federal Circuit affirmance of summary judgment win in patent dispute over office and production printer technologyOn behalf of Ricoh USA, Inc., Jones Day prevailed before the Federal Circuit, obtaining a Rule 36 affirmance of the district court’s decisions dismissing two patents for indefiniteness at the Markman stage and granting summary judgment of non-infringement on the five remaining patents.
  • NXP resolves patent infringement claims brought by competitor MediaTek in ITCJones Day represented NXP Semiconductors N.V. et al. as respondents/defendants in a patent infringement dispute brought by competitor MediaTek Inc. et al. before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
  • NXP settles global patent dispute with MediaTek over semiconductor technologyJones Day represented NXP Semiconductors N.V. et al. as complainant/plaintiff in a patent infringement dispute against competitor MediaTek Inc. et al. before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 
  • Ricoh granted summary judgment of non-infringement in patent case relating to office and production printer technologyOn behalf of Ricoh USA, Inc., Jones Day obtained an order granting a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on the five remaining patents in a case originally involving 19 patents relating to both hardware and software aspects of office and production printer technology.
  • Specialty engineered woods manufacturer reaches settlement in trade secret and supply agreement disputeJones Day represented an industry leader in the manufacture of specialty engineered wood products in a lawsuit against a supplier involving allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, tortious interference, and unfair competition.
  • Cooper Lighting successfully asserts patents relating to LED downlights against competitorsJones Day represented Eaton Corporation's subsidiary Cooper Lighting, LLC, in successfully asserting four Cooper Lighting patents on LED downlights against competitors Cordelia Lighting, Inc. and Jimway, Inc.
  • Compass Bank obtains dismissal with prejudice against patent infringement claims brought by Intellectual VenturesJones Day successfully represented Compass Bank in a patent infringement action brought by the non-practicing entity Intellectual Ventures II LLC relating to online banking services.
  • Eaton successfully defends indoor lighting patents against IPR petitionsJones Day represented Eaton Corporation's subsidiary Cooper Lighting, LLC, in successfully defending two inter partes review petitions filed by Cordelia Lighting, Inc., against U.S. Patent Nos. 8,348,479 and 8,789,978, which relate to indoor lighting.
  • Mando resolves multipatent infringement suit filed by Robert Bosch GmbHJones Day represented Mando Corporation and Mando America (collectively "Mando") in the defense of a multipatent infringement suit filed by Robert Bosch GmbH in September 2016 relating to antilock braking systems.
  • Compass Bank prevails at PTAB and in Federal Circuit in IPRs challenging Intellectual Ventures patentsJones Day, on behalf of Compass Bank, prevailed in three inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging patents asserted by Intellectual Ventures II LLC against numerous aspects of Compass Bank's online banking operations in a patent infringement lawsuit filed in June 2013.
  • HD Supply secures early dismissal from NPE patent infringement caseJones Day secured an early dismissal for HD Supply, Inc. in a patent infringement case involving interactive web page technology.
  • Endeavour Vision invests in GynesonicsJones Day represented Endeavour Vision SA in connection with its investment in Gynesonics, Inc., a women’s healthcare company focused on the development of minimally invasive solutions for symptomatic uterine fibroids.
  • Aimetis Corp. settles DJ action regarding video surveillance patentJones Day represented Aimetis Corp. in a declaration judgment action relating to Hawk Technology Systems, LLC's U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE43,462, which is directed to video monitoring technology, and specifically to varying video streaming and image size in different windows on the same monitor.
  • March Networks settles DJ action regarding video surveillance patentJones Day represented March Networks Corporation in a declaration judgment action relating to Hawk Technology Systems, LLC's U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE43,462, which is directed to video monitoring technology, and specifically to varying video streaming and image size in different windows on the same monitor.
  • Whole You™ acquires Respire MedicalJones Day advised Mitsui Chemical Inc. with the acquisition by its Whole You, Inc. subsidiary of oral appliance company Respire Medical.
  • Genetec files declaratory judgment action against Hawk Technology Systems, LLCJones Day represented Genetec, Inc. in an action seeking a declaration that it did not infringe, and had intervening rights in, Hawk Technology Systems, LLC's U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE 43,462, claiming to cover video storage and display technology.

    •

    September 2023 Blog

    PTAB Rejects Double-Dose of Prior Art, PTAB Litigation Blog

    September 2019 Blog

    PTAB Designates Precedential Decision Relating to Infringer’s Civil Action Barring IPR, PTAB Litigation Blog

    October 2018 Blog

    PTAB: Institution Decision Addressing Only One Claim Acceptable Post-SAS, PTAB Litigation Blog

    June 2018 Blog

    Federal Circuit Grants Rehearing and Remands IPR to PTAB post-SAS, PTAB Litigation Blog

    January 2018 Blog

    PTAB Denies Request to Submit Supplemental Information on Skill Level of POSITA, PTAB Litigation Blog

    December 2017 Blog

    PTAB Denies Institution Because of Pending Reexamination Considering Same Prior Art, PTAB Litigation Blog

    November 2017 Blog

    Petitioners Must Explain Combining Multiple Embodiments of Reference in Obviousness Argument, PTAB Litigation Blog

    September 2017 Blog

    PTAB Denies Untimely Request to Stay Pending Reexaminations, PTAB Litigation Blog

    August 2017 Blog

    PTAB Denies Discovery on Chipsets Purportedly Related to Proper Interpretation of Reference, PTAB Litigation Blog

    May 2017 Blog

    EDTX Interprets Federal Circuit Precedent Narrowly, Recommends Applying §315 Estoppel Broadly, PTAB Litigation Blog
    Voir toutes les publications

    • March 3, 2022
      Introduction to IP Investigations Before the International Trade Commission: What In-House Lawyers Should Know, Jones Day CLE Academy
    • February 22, 2016
      The Shifting Landscape of Patent Litigation, Jones Day CLE Academy
    • October 8, 2015
      Practical Tips and Guidance for Post Grant Proceedings at the USPTO, panelist, IP Section of the State Bar of Georgia
    • February 26, 2014
      Review of the First 18 Months of USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings Under the AIA: Strategies, Trends, & Observations, Jones Day CLE Academy
    • November 10, 2012
      Patent Indirect Infringement, panelist, ICLE in Georgia's Annual North American Entertainment, Sports, and Intellectual Property Law Conference
    • November 13, 2009
      Section 1404(a) Motions to Transfer: Strategic Considerations After TS Tech and Other Recent Decisions, panelist, ICLE in Georgia's Annual North American Entertainment, Sports, and Intellectual Property Law Conference

    Avant d’envoyer cet e-mail, veuillez prendre note de ce qui suit :

    Les informations contenues sur le site www.jonesday.com sont destinées à un usage général et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques. L’envoi et la réception de cet e-mail n’ont pas pour effet de créer une relation avocat-client. Aucun envoi de votre part à un membre du Cabinet ne sera traité comme confidentiel ou protégé à moins que nous n’ayons donné notre accord pour vous représenter. En envoyant cet e-mail, vous confirmez avoir lu et compris la présente notification.