Greg is a Partner in the Orange County office of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, where he is a member of the firm's Patent Litigation Group and PTAB Trial Group.
In his nearly 25 years as a lawyer, Greg has focused on litigating patent infringement matters and other disputes involving complex technology, as well as representing patent owners and challengers before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
"I strive to litigate cases strategically with a view towards creative, and sometimes unorthodox, approaches with the client's specific goal in mind. To this end, I find that conversations with my clients often revolve around gaining an understanding of their business and its goals, especially as they may change over the course of a lawsuit. Victory often can take many forms."
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. -- Sun Tzu
Greg also has extensive experience with licensing intellectual property, including successfully negotiating hundreds of license agreements, and advising clients regarding their IP litigation and acquisition strategy.
He has litigated patent cases throughout the United States, including popular patent venues in the Northern and Central Districts of California, and the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas. In addition, Greg has represented clients before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and PTAB. Greg's clients come from a wide variety of industries, including semiconductor and LCD manufacturing, medical devices, computer software, computer accessories, automotive, aircraft (avionics and interiors), and consumer products (packaging and paper products).
When not practicing law, Greg enjoys reading (mostly fiction), skiing, traveling and attending USC, LAA, Angels, Ducks and Lakers games with his wife and daughter. Before attending law school, Greg worked as an aerospace engineer.Recognition
Greg has been consistently recognized as an authority in IP law.
- Best Lawyers in America, Intellectual Property Litigation and Patent Litigation, 2010-2022
- Best Lawyers in America, Patent Litigation Lawyer of the Year in Orange County, 2017, 2019 & 2020
- Super Lawyers, Southern California, 2011-2022
- Super Lawyers, Rising Star, 2005-2007
- Lead counsel representing Theragun/Therabody in numerous lawsuits asserting infringement of the company's patents and trade dress related to percussive massage devices and attachment: Therabody Inc. v. First Health Advantage, LLC (C.D. Cal. 2022); Therabody Inc. v. E Zee Electronics, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2022); Therabody Inc. v. The TJX Companies, Inc. (D. Del. 2022); Therabody Inc. v. Audro (II) (C.D. Cal. 2022); Therabody, Inc. v. ReAthlete (C.D. Cal. 2021); Therabody, Inc. v. Audro (C.D. Cal. 2021); Therabody, Inc. v. Legend Group Inc. and TJX Companies, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2021); Theragun, Inc. v. Tzumi, Inc. (S.D. N.Y. 2021); Therabody Inc. v. Homedics et al. (C.D. Cal. 2021); Therabody Inc. v. Njoie et al. (C.D. Cal 2021); Therabody, Inc. v. DJO, LLC dba COMPEX (C.D. Cal. 2021); Theragun, Inc. v. Echelon (Del. 2021); Theragun, Inc. v. Complete Recovery et al, Case No. 2-20-cv-03821 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020 ); Theragun, Inc. v. Lifepro Fitness, LLC. et al., Case No. 2-20-cv-02442 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020); Theragun, Inc. v. Achedaway Shenzhen Technology Co., Ltd et al., Case No. 2-20-cv-01714 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2020); Theragun, LLC v. Massage Guns, Inc., Case No. 2-19-cv-05777 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 02, 2019); Theragun, LLC v. Pechiko Designs LLC d/b/a Alyne, Case No. 4-19-cv-03846 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 2, 2019); Theragun, LLC v. Hyper Ice, Inc., Case No. 8-19-cv-01258 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2019).
- Lead counsel representing Western Digital defending against a non-practicing entity's infringement allegations involving patents directed to electronic data transmission. The case was dismissed with prejudice after the Court granted Western Digital's motion to dismiss for lack of patentable subject matter and held that the patents were invalid. Data Scape LLC v. Western Digital, et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-02285-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal. 2019). The decision was affirmed on appeal. 816 Fed. Appx 461 (Fed. Circ. 2020).
- Lead counsel on behalf of United Rentals (f/k/a BakerCorp) defending against a competitor's infringement allegations directed to vertical tanks used in oil and gas industries. The case dismissed with prejudice. Vertical Tank, Inc. v. BakerCorp, et al., Case No. 1-18-cv-00145 (E.D. Cal. 2018).
- Lead counsel representing Logitech defending against a non-practicing entity's infringement allegations involving patents directed at electronic communications using Bluetooth technology. The case was dismissed following invalidation of the asserted patent. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Logitech Inc., et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-01304-LHK (N.D. Cal. 2018).
- Lead counsel representing Electronics for Imaging asserting a declaratory judgment action of no infringement against a non-practicing entity's patents directed to color calibration software used in wide format printers. The case is stayed following institution of IPRs on the asserted patents. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLP, Case No. 3:18-cv-01612-WHO (N.D. Cal. 2018).
- Lead trial counsel for Innolux defending against a non-practicing entity's infringement allegations of six patents pertaining to fabrication of LCD Modules. The case was dismissed following Innolux's institution of seven IPRs on the asserted patents. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. Ltd. v. Chimei Innolux Corporation, et. al., Case No. 8-12-cv-00021 (C.D. Cal. 2012-2013).
- Lead counsel for Innolux Corporation against a non-practicing entity's infringement allegations involving the manufacture of liquid crystal displays. Eidos Display, LLC, et al. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al. Case No. 6-11-cv-00201 (E.D. Tex. 2011-2020).
- Lead counsel representing Logitech against a competitor's infringement allegations directed to computer peripheral devices. Targus Group International, Inc. v. Logitech Inc., et al.,8-15-cv-01407 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
- Lead trial counsel for Edwards Lifesciences in challenging the validity of a patent directed to a transcatheter heart valve, which resulted in the challenged claims being held unpatentable. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Bos. Sci. SciMed, Inc., Case No. IPR2017-00060, 2018 WL 1508704 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. IANCU, Case No. No. 2018-2004, 811 Fed. Appx. 618 (May 6, 2020).
- Lead trial counsel for Panasonic in challenging the validity of a patent directed to a computer interface device for transferring data, which resulted in the challenged claims being held unpatentable. Panasonic Corporation, et al. v. Papst Licensing GMBH & CO, KG (Case No. IPR2016-01223).
- Lead trial counsel for Shimano in challenging the validity of a patent directed to the use of magnetic seals in fishing reels, which resulted in the challenged claims being held unpatentable. Shimano Inc. v. Globeride, Inc. (Case No. IPR2015-00273).
J.D., University of Southern California Gould School of Law, 1997
M.B.A., Pepperdine University, 1992
B.S. Aerospace Engineering, Boston University, 1988
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
American Bar Association, Section on Intellectual Property
American Intellectual Property Law Association
Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association
Orange County Patent Law Association
PTAB Bar Association
Boston University Engineering Dean's West Coast Alumni Advisory Council
- Petitioner's Reliance on the Service Date in the Proof of Service Dooms Petitions In IPR2015-00838 and IPR2015-00840, Petitioner Tristar Products, Inc. ("Petitioner") filed petitions to instituted IPRs of certain claims of U.S.
- District Court Awards Defendant Its IPR-Related Fees Under § 285 In Deep Sky Software, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant Southwest Airlines ("Southwest") sought its fees and costs following the successful