Jeffrey R. Colin

• Intercurrency Software LLC v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended TD Ameritrade in a patent infringement case involving 3 patents directed to methods and systems for transactions involving currency exchange
• Intercurrency Software LLC v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended Charles Schwab in a patent infringement case involving 3 patents directed to methods and systems for transactions involving currency exchange.
• Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. The Charles Schwab Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended Charles Schwab in a patent infringement case involving one patent directed to two-factor authentication.
• RJ Technology LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (PTAB): Represented Samsung with respect to an inter partes review petitions concerning a patent directed to lithium-ion batteries.
• RJ Technology LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended Samsung in a patent infringement case involving one patent directed to lithium-ion batteries.
• Liberty Peak Ventures, LLC v. The Charles Schwab Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended Charles Schwab in a patent infringement case involving 7 patents directed to processing and authenticating electronic transactions.
• Tigo Energy Inc. v. SMA Solar Technology America, et al. (D. Del.): Represented Tigo Energy with respect to a patent infringement case involving multiple patents directed to solar modules and power supply systems.
• Brightplus Ventures LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended LG Electronics in a patent infringement case involving 9 patents directed to LED backlighting and LED circuits.
• BillJCo, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended Hewlett Packard Enterprise in a patent infringement case involving 3 patents directed to beacon technology for wireless networks.
• 360Heros, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (W.D. Tex.): Defended Samsung in a patent infringement case involving a patent directed to a camera system.
• MemoryWeb LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (W.D. Tex.): Defended Samsung in a patent infringement case involving 3 patents directed to photo applications.
• RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended Samsung in a patent infringement case involving 5 patents directed to mobile payments.
• RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented Samsung with respect to 4 inter partes review petitions concerning patents directed to mobile payments.
• Satco Products, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., et al. (N.D. Ga.): Represented Satco with respect to a patent infringement case involving multiple patents directed to LED technology.
• Satco Products, Inc. v. Signify North America Corp., et al. (W.D. Tex.): Represented Satco with respect to a patent infringement case involving multiple patents directed to LED technology.
• Viavi Solutions Inc. v. Platinum Optics Technology Inc. (N.D. Ca.): Represented Platinum Optics Technology in a patent infringement cases involving 4 patents concerning 3D optical filters and sensors systems used in cellphones, tablets and other mobile devices.
• Sovereign Peak Ventures, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended LG Electronics in a case brought by Sovereign Peak Ventures, LLC involving 7 patents concerning streaming video, WiFi Direct, voice recognition and digital assistants.
• Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (C.D. Cal.): Defended LG Electronics in a case brought by Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC involving 2 patents concerning ambient light correction for displays and a multi-load time sharing driver for backlight displays.
• Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. (C.D. Cal.): Represented LG Electronics with respect to 2 inter partes review petitions concerning a patent directed to ambient light correction for displays.
• In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices With Optical Filters and Optical Sensor Systems and Components Thereof (ITC): Defended Optrontec Inc. in an ITC action brought by Viavi Solutions Inc. involving 3 patents concerning 3D optical filters and sensors systems used in cellphones, tablets and other mobile devices.
• Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended Samsung in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of a patent directed to video processing of Samsung’s SmartTVs.
• Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended Samsung in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of a patent directed to the lock screen feature of Samsung’s smartphones.
• Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended Samsung in a patent infringement case alleging infringement of a patent directed to reconfigurable communication networks.
• Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.): Defended Samsung in 4 patent infringement cases alleging infringement of patents concerning Bluetooth, LTE and other communication protocols.

• Fate Therapeutics, Inc. v. Shoreline Biosciences, Inc. et al. (S.D. Cal): Represented Fate Therapeutics and Whitehead Institute with respect to a patent infringement case involving multiple patents directed to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).
• Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. B. Braun Medical Inc., et al. (E.D. Pa): Defended B. Braun against patent infringement claims relating to acute renal therapy kidney dialysis devices.
• Wall v. B. Braun Interventional Systems Inc., et al. (N.D. Tex.): Defended B. Braun against patent infringement claims relating to cardiovascular stent technologies. Settled prior to fact discovery.
• Mallinckrodt IP Unlimited et al. v. B. Braun Medical Inc. (D. Del.): Represented B. Braun in a 505(b)(2) Paragraph IV challenge of the OFIRMEV intravenous paracetamol formulation and manufacturing process patents. Settled following Markman ruling in favor of B. Braun and invitation by the district court judge to file for summary judgment.
• Becton, Dickinson and Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AG: Represented B. Braun with respect to 8 inter partes review petitions concerning patents related to intravenous catheters.
• Represented a leading pharmaceutical company in a patent litigation involving patents directed to the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy and irritable bowel syndrome.°
• Represented a leading pharmaceutical company in multiple patent litigations involving patents directed to the treatment of attention deficit disorder.°
• Represented a leading pharmaceutical company in a trade secret litigation.°
• Represented a leading pharmaceutical company in a patent litigation involving patents directed to the treatment of acne.°
• Represented a leading pharmaceutical company in a patent litigation involving patents directed to benign prostatic hyperplasia.°

°The above representations were handled by Mr. Colin prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

• Listed, Super Lawyers magazine, New York Metro Super Lawyers, "Rising Stars," 2021-2022