Adam M. Greenfield
Biography
Overview
Adam Greenfield advises clients across industries on complex intellectual property matters, with particular experience in patent litigation and licensing involving electrical and computer technology.
Drawing on his technical background and trial experience, Adam represents domestic and international clients in key patent venues, including US district courts, the US International Trade Commission (ITC), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His clients include many of the world's top brands, ranging from global financial institutions to leading companies within the automotive, manufacturing, computer networking, defense technology, and consumer electronics sectors.
Adam regularly handles multifaceted patent matters complicated by antitrust, false advertising, trade secret, or other issues. His representations also frequently involve standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing.
Adam offers clients an in-depth knowledge of the patent space, combining a background in electrical engineering and prior experience clerking for Judge Kimberly Moore at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He helps clients achieve favorable resolutions efficiently by conducting early case analysis and focusing on the issues that matter.
Adam is a member of the Federal Circuit Bar Association and PTAB Bar Association. In law school, he served as managing editor of the law review.
Experience
In addition to advising clients on corporate transactions and confidentially on pre- and non-litigation matters, Adam's public representations include the following:
Swarm Technology, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (FedCir; DAriz; PTAB): Representing Amazon in multi-patent case relating to internet of things (IoT) devices and distributed computing systems.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (DDel): Representing Amazon in multi-patent case relating to elder care and machine-learning technology.
CCC Intelligent Solutions Inc. v. Tractable Inc. (7th Cir; NDIll): Represented CCC in fraud and trade secret misappropriation case relating to software solutions in the automotive insurance and repair industries. Defeated motion to compel arbitration, which was affirmed on appeal.
Foras Technologies Ltd. v. Kia Corp., et al. (EDTex): Represented Kia in patent case relating to Radar products and lockstep processing technology. Obtained stay under customer-suit exception.
VDPP v. Kia America, Inc., et al. (EDTex): Represented Kia in patent case relating to camera and LCD technology. Settled before responsive pleading.
SPG Dry Cooling USA LLC v. Evapco Dry Cooling, Inc. (FedCir; DNJ): Represented Evapco in multi-patent case relating to air-cooled condensers. Settled after claim construction.
Longbeam Technologies LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (DDel): Represented Amazon in multi-patent case relating to location-based encryption and access control technology. Obtained early stay of case to pursue standing-related discovery, leading to settlement.
Pacific Coast Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. CertainTeed Gypsum, Inc. (FedCir; NDCal; WDArk): Represented CertainTeed in multi-patent cases relating to gypsum and viscoelastic glue products. Invalidated one patent based on indefiniteness, which was affirmed on appeal, and obtained dismissal with prejudice for all other patents.
Green Mountain Glass, LLC v. O-I Glass, Inc. (WDTex): Represented O-I Glass in multi-patent case relating to glass container manufacturing processes and ingredients. Settled after claim construction.
In the Matter of Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Electric Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same II (ITC): Represented Honda in multi-patent case filed by Intellectual Ventures. ALJ terminated first investigation for lack of standing. Trial in refiled investigation resulted in initial determination and Commission decision of no violation.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Capital One Financial Corp., et al. (FedCir; DMd): Represented Capital One in multi-patent and antitrust case relating to data security and electronic banking. Obtained early dismissal of one patent and invalidated remaining patents on summary judgment, which was affirmed on appeal.
Vehicle Interface Technologies, LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (FedCir): Represented Jaguar Land Rover in patent appeal relating to vehicle dashboard technology. Summary judgment of invalidity based on anticipation affirmed.
In the Matter of Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (USITC): Represented NVIDIA in multi-patent case relating to graphics processing. Settled.
Federal-Mogul Motorparts Corp. v. Mevotech L.P. (EDMich.; USITC): Represented Mevotech in patent and false advertising cases relating to automotive parts. Settled.
Graff/Ross Holdings, LLP v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (FedCir; DDC): Represented Freddie Mac in one defensive and two declaratory judgment patent cases relating to electronic bond auctions. Invalidated all 616 asserted patent claims on summary judgement, which was affirmed on appeal.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. HSBC USA Inc., et al. (SDNY): Represented HSBC in multi-patent case relating to financial services. All claims voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al. (FedCir): Represented SSL in patent appeal relating to VPN technology. Judgment of willful infringement and no invalidity affirmed.
Technology Patents LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd., et al. (FedCir): Represented KPN, Base and E-Plus Mobilfunk in appeal of successful dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Affirmed.
Pro Bono Experience:
Adam has contributed to a diverse range of pro bono matters. For example, he obtained a victory on behalf of veteran Robert Doyon in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which issued a precedential decision holding that the Navy was required to apply liberal consideration to applications, like Mr. Doyon's, that seek medical retirement due to combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder. 58 F.4th 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
