Counsel
Intellectual Property
Jeffrey Han’s practice covers a wide range of intellectual property matters, with a focus on patent litigation. His experience extends to all phases of intellectual property litigation, from pre-suit investigation and initial discovery, through trial and appeal. Jeff has represented clients before numerous federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He also has experience in AAA arbitration proceedings. In addition, Jeff has co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association before the U.S. Supreme Court.
After law school, Jeff served as judicial clerk to The Honorable Timothy B. Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. During law school, he served as judicial extern to The Honorable James B. Zagel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Prior to attending law school, Jeff worked as a product development engineer for enterprise storage products at a major computer technology company.
(Fed. Cir., W.D. Tex., PTAB) – Representing a multinational technology manufacturer in patent infringement litigation related to lithium-ion battery technologies; obtained complete reversal at Federal Circuit of trial court’s judgment of invalidity based on indefiniteness
(Fed. Cir.); (N.D. Cal.) — Represented leading Internet companies in consolidated patent infringement actions related to distributed processing technology; obtained judgment on the pleadings invalidating all three asserted patents for claiming unpatentable subject matter; the judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit
(Fed. Cir.); (W.D. Tex.) — Represented major sports media companies in a patent infringement case relating to mobile streaming media applications; the V&E team led the briefing and oral argument on behalf of consolidated defendant groups to obtain a dismissal at the pleadings stage and invalidity of the asserted patent based on unpatentable subject matter, which was affirmed on appeal
(Fed. Cir.); (D.N.M.) — Represented major sports league and major sports media company in litigation involving technology for streaming video from sporting events to fans’ mobile devices; obtained complete dismissal by district court of all claims with prejudice and invalidity of the asserted patents based on unpatentable subject matter, which was affirmed on appeal
(Fed. Cir.) — Represented provider of real-time data solutions for oil well monitoring and analysis in appeal by competitor of dismissal and invalidity of asserted patent; received affirmance on appeal
(E.D. Tex.) — Represented a wireless technology company in patent infringement litigation involving multiple patents relating to modulation and coding of wireless broadband and cellular telephone signals
(D. Del.) — Represented two major computer manufacturers in patent litigation filed in the District of Delaware in which the plaintiff asserted infringement of 7 patents and sought damages for a variety of technologies used by the entire PC industry, including power management technologies currently reflected in the ACPI standard as well as graphics processors and PC architecture; after prevailing on numerous summary judgment motions the parties reached a favorable settlement
(C.D. Cal.) — Represented television manufacturer in patent and antitrust litigation relating to MPEG-2, H.264, and ATSC standard essential patents; resolution of cases prior to trial
(C.D. Cal.) — Represented memory device company in patent litigations relating to solid-state drive and DRAM technologies
(ITC) — Represented outdoor and lifestyle products company before the U.S. International Trade Commission asserting infringement of design patents, trademarks, and copyrights by foreign counterfeiters and online marketplaces that facilitated sales of counterfeits; received favorable settlements and resolution of the case
(AAA Arbitration) — Represented video surveillance technology company in trade secret dispute with former supplier involving network video recorders
Education
Admissions
Client Alerts
Critical IP Issues Surrounding the Energy Transition
A host of questions are arising about the intellectual property rights attached to energy transition projects because of enormous investments in the space and the cutting-edge technologies that follow.
March 20, 2024 • Published by IAM
March 20, 2024 • 1-minute read
Client Alerts
White House Issues First-of-its-Kind Executive Order on AI
On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued an Executive Order (“Order”) that drastically increased the U.S. government’s engagement with artificial intelligence (“AI”).
October 31, 2023 • V&E Cybersecurity Update
October 31, 2023 • 4-minute read
Client Alerts
Stopping Holes in Your IPR Estoppel Arguments
On April 3, 2023, in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Nos. 21-2296, 21-2297, 22-1070 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023), the Federal Circuit for the first time defined the standard for determining the scope of estoppel set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for prior art that was not raised in an inter partes review (“IPR”) petition.
April 5, 2023 • V&E IP Update
April 5, 2023 • 3-minute read
Deals & Cases
Vinson & Elkins Wins $8.4 Million Jury Verdict for Oilfield Services Trade Secrets Theft
A Vinson & Elkins litigation team helped client BCCK Engineering Inc. secure an $8.4 million jury verdict against a rival …
February 11, 2026
February 11, 2026 • 2-minute read
our People
Please note that any communication with Vinson & Elkins via e-mail through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with V&E. Please do not send any confidential information. A conflicts-of-interest procedure must be completed by V&E prior to establishment of an attorney-client relationship. When you execute an engagement letter from V&E you will be our client, and you may then exchange information freely with a V&E attorney.
By clicking “Accept,” you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if it is highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.
