Jeffrey A. Miller | People | Arnold & Porter

Jeffrey Miller focuses on patent litigation, Patent Office contested proceedings, strategic patent counseling, licensing, and patent prosecution both in the United States and abroad. He represents clients in a variety of technical industries, including integrated circuit design, packaging and fabrication, biometrics, telecom, wireless, and electronic design automation. He also conducts intellectual property due diligence studies to assist venture capital firms and other parties when making investment decisions.

Focus Areas

Experience

Hologic in its enforcement of multiple patents relating medical imaging equipment. In an ITC proceeding, the Administrative Law Judge found for Hologic on every issue and recommended entry of an exclusion order preventing importation of the accused products into the United States. Jeffrey also successfully prevented institution of inter partes review trials that challenged patents involved in the ITC proceeding.
Cypress Semiconductor in its defense of several patents undergoing inter partes review relating to both Universal Serial Bus and touch screen technologies before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The IPR proceedings were successfully settled. LG Electronics v. Cypress Semiconductor (PTAB 2015).
Samsung Electronics in several inter partes review proceedings challenging the validity of claims directed to multi-modulation modems. The IPRs resulted in all claims in trial being cancelled. Samsung Electronics Co. LTD. v. Rembrandt (PTAB 2015)
AtopTech in an inter partes review proceeding challenging the validity of claims directed to static timing analysis tools used for designing integrated circuits. The IPRs resulted in all claims in trial being cancelled. ATopTech Inc. v. Synopsys Inc. (PTAB 2016).
Belkin, Best Buy, and RadioShack in its defense case involving RF transmitter technology. Drafted claim construction briefs, argued at the Markman hearing, and identified the key prior art from third parties. Belkin won on all significant terms. Aerielle Technologies Inc. v. Belkin International Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2011).

Cadence Design Systems, as lead counsel, in this multi-patent suit relating to software used to design integrated circuits. The case was successfully settled. Cadence Design Systems Inc. v. OEA International.
Cadence Design Systems and its indemnitee Sony, as lead counsel, in this patent suit relating to tuner chips used in high definition televisions. The case was successfully settled during claim construction briefing. Lonestar Inventions LP. v. Cadence Design Systems Inc. and Sony Electronics Inc.
Belkin in the successful defense of this case involving KVM switch technology. Drafted Belkin's claim construction brief and argued Belkin's claim construction positions at the Markman hearing. Belkin won on all significant terms. Jeffrey also drafted and prosecuted an inter partes reexamination that led to cancellation of the asserted claims in one of the patents-in-suit. Aten International, et. al. v. Belkin International Inc. et. al., (C.D. Cal. 2011).
UPEK in multiple patent infringement cases involving fingerprint sensors used in laptops and cell phones. All cases were successfully settled.
NextG Networks in multiple patent infringement cases involving distributed antenna systems used in cellular telephone networks. All cases were successfully settled.
Universal Instruments as trial counsel in this patent lawsuit, in which Aguayo and Tran accused Universal of infringing a patent relating to robotic assembly machines for manufacturing printed circuit boards. Following a three-week jury trial in Houston, all 17 claims at issue were found invalid and not infringed. Aguayo and Tran v. Universal Instruments.
Quickturn Design Systems in this case in which Jeffrey was responsible for the discovery of evidence proving that the inventor of the patent-in-suit fabricated numerous documents, including his engineering notebooks in this case involving electronic design automation tools. The work resulted in the case being dismissed and an award of all of Quickturn's attorneys' fees. Jeffrey then successfully enforced Quickturn's judgment against Aptix. While enforcing the judgment, he was able to void the inventor's security interest in all of Aptix's assets, thereby enabling Quickturn to collect on its judgment. The order voiding the security interest was also affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Aptix Corp. and Meta Systems v. Quickturn Design Systems Inc.
Sensormedics and Pulmonox in defeating a motion seeking to preliminarily enjoin the sale of nitric oxide gas and delivery systems in this medical device litigation. Instrumental in obtaining a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement under the safe harbor provisions provided by the Hatch-Waxman Act (35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)). INO Therapeutics, AGA Gas AB and Massachusetts General Hospital v. Sensormedics Corp. and Pulmonox Medical Inc.