Jennifer M. Lantz

I'll research this attorney's background before drafting the summary.

Let me verify the Valtrus case details and check for PTAB/IPR involvement and bar admissions.

Let me confirm whether she appears in any IPR/PGR proceedings and verify the earlier Valtrus–Digital Realty matter.

Jennifer M. Lantz — Duane Morris LLP (Palo Alto / Silicon Valley)

Ms. Lantz is principally a trademark and brand-protection lawyer who also carries a general intellectual-property litigation practice; patents appear as one component of that broader docket rather than as a standalone technology specialty. Firm bios describe her litigating "patents, trade secrets, rights of publicity, copyrights, licensing, contract disputes and numerous section 337 matters in the International Trade Commission," but give no indication of a standards-based (Wi-Fi/SEP), pharmaceutical, or mechanical patent focus, and no patent-focused practice description is publicly available. The only patent case in the tracked record involves data center cooling and thermal-management technology, which is consistent with her Silicon Valley infrastructure/technology client base. Her technology-facing visibility is concentrated in artificial-intelligence and copyright/AI-training issues, on which she has published and spoken.

Side preference. The tracked record is a single appearance, all on the defendant side (0 plaintiff / 1 defendant), defending an operating company — Digital Realty Trust, a publicly traded data center REIT — against a non-practicing entity. That defense posture fits the firm's characterization of her infringement-defense work. Her trademark practice is genuinely two-sided (she has obtained and defended against preliminary injunctions), so the plaintiff/defendant split of 0–1 should be read as a very small patent sample, not a settled plaintiff-side or defense-only orientation.

Firm context. Ms. Lantz has been a partner at Duane Morris LLP since 2020, resident in the firm's Silicon Valley (Palo Alto) office and a member of its Intellectual Property Practice Group. She joined alongside Philip W. Woo from Haynes and Boone. Prior partner roles: Haynes and Boone LLP (2016–2020 and 2009–2012), Hogan Lovells US LLP (2012–2016), and MacPherson Kwok Chen & Heid (2003–2009). She is not in-house.

Notable patent matter. Her tracked case is Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. Digital Realty Trust, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., No. 2:24-cv-00535, consolidated into lead case 2:24-cv-00361-JRG before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap). Plaintiff Valtrus Innovations and Key Patent Innovations (an NPE asserting a portfolio associated with British Telecom) accused Digital Realty's data centers of infringing seven patents on cooling, atmospheric control, and thermal management. Duane Morris served as defense counsel, with Ms. Lantz and Mr. Woo appearing for Digital Realty. The Digital Realty member cases were dismissed with prejudice by joint motion, and Ms. Lantz was terminated as counsel in the January 22, 2025 order — a defense-favorable, confidential resolution rather than a judgment or verdict. No Federal Circuit appeals or reported patent verdicts attributable to her were found.

PTAB / IPR experience. No inter partes review, post-grant review, or other AIA trial appearances by Ms. Lantz were identified. Her U.S. Patent and Trademark Office practice, as described in her bio, is trademark-side — opposition and cancellation proceedings before the TTAB — not PTAB patent trials, and no USPTO patent-bar registration is listed.

Bar / education. Admitted in California (Bar No. 202252), Massachusetts, and Georgia; also admitted before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, the First and Ninth Circuits, and several California district courts. J.D., cum laude, University of Georgia School of Law (1994); B.A., cum laude, University of Michigan (1991).

Sourcing note: firm bios (Duane Morris, Legal 500), the Duane Morris lateral-hire announcement, the E.D. Tex. docket/order, and a litigation summary of the Valtrus matter. Technology-area characterization is inferred from the single tracked case and firm practice descriptions; it is not a verified statement of a formal patent specialty.