James Gordon

I'll research this attorney carefully, given the potential for name ambiguity.

Let me dig into the notable case outcome and verify the attorney's other appearances.

Let me check for name disambiguation, bar admission, and the outcome of the Valtrus matters.

Professional Summary — James Gordon (Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP)

Specialty / focus areas. Gordon's practice is general complex commercial and IP litigation rather than a narrow patent specialty. The one tracked matter, Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. SAP America, Inc. et al., is an enterprise-software case in the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Gilstrap) asserting patents covering multi-processor cache coherency, fault-tolerant messaging/storage, data redundancy, and dynamic cache partitioning — asserted against SAP's HANA products. His publicly listed portfolio is broader: web-application delivery technology (Droplets, Inc., E.D. Tex.), video-streaming patents (Broadcom Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., N.D. Cal.), antibody-discovery technology (Bruker Cellular Analysis, N.D. Cal.), and architectural-hardware/mechanical and trade-secret work (Oldcastle/CRL arbitration and multi-forum litigation). Nothing in the record points to Wi-Fi/SEP standards, pharma/ANDA, or life-sciences patent prosecution as a focus area.

Side preference. He is exclusively plaintiff-side on the patent docket. The authoritative tracker shows 1 of 1 appearances for plaintiffs and zero for defendants, and every web-searchable matter places him with the patent holder/asserting party. The plaintiff-side representations are mixed in character: operating-company plaintiffs (Broadcom, Bruker), a longstanding asserting entity in the Droplets campaign, and the Key Patent Innovations/Valtrus "HPE portfolio" vehicles, which monetize acquired patents through litigation. There is no evidence of a defense-side practice or of in-house employment.

Firm context. He is an associate in RJLF's Silicon Valley/Redwood Shores office and is the only firm listed in the tracked data; the firm bio identifies no prior law-firm practice, stating that he joined RJLF after clerking. Note a name-disambiguation caveat: "James Gordon" is a common name, and this summary is scoped to the RJLF associate whose name appears PRO HAC VICE on the Valtrus docket — not other attorneys sharing the name.

Notable cases / outcomes. The Valtrus/SAP dispute has generated significant procedural rulings on the plaintiff's standing to sue: in November 2024 the district court found Article III standing but held that Valtrus lacked statutory standing under 35 U.S.C. § 281 as it did not hold all substantial rights in the asserted patents, and permitted joinder of parent Key Patent Innovations; the related actions were consolidated in February 2025, and the Federal Circuit denied SAP's mandamus petition seeking intra-district transfer to Sherman on April 10, 2025. RJLF's portfolio-wide Valtrus/Key Patent litigation has since drawn adverse standing rulings in other venued actions, so outcomes in this family have been mixed. Other listed results include a confidential settlement for CardWare against Samsung (E.D. Tex.) and dismissals in the Droplets cases (e.g., Home Depot dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation); the Droplets '745 patent has also been under Unified Patents ex parte reexamination.

PTAB / IPR. He is not a high-volume PTAB practitioner at this stage, but he has appeared in IPR proceedings as patent-owner counsel — he is designated pro hac vice for Valtrus in the SAP IPRs (IPR2025-00418/419/420), where the Board denied institution on at least the '738 patent and SAP moved to withdraw other petitions. Treat him as IPR-adjacent (patent-owner side) rather than an established IPR lead.

Bar / education. J.D., Columbia Law School (2021); B.A., Pomona College (2015); law clerk to Judge William H. Alsup, N.D. Cal.; licensed in California (per a third-party directory, not independently verified against State Bar records).