Stephanie M. Suarez

I'll research this attorney's background and patent litigation practice.

Multiple attorneys share this name. Let me disambiguate and dig into the DNF-associated Stephanie Suarez.

Let me disambiguate the multiple "Stephanie Suarez" attorneys and verify education, bar, and current firm.

Professional Summary — Stephanie M. Suarez

Focus areas. All four of her tracked patent appearances are defendant-side matters handled out of the New York litigation boutique Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig LLP, and they cluster around a single large campaign: the patent-infringement litigation brought by Intellectual Ventures II against JPMorgan Chase and its affiliates over cryptographic and data-encryption hardware. The lead patent in that dispute, U.S. Patent No. 7,634,666, claimed a "crypto-engine" co-processor capable of executing the RSA and Elliptic Curve Cryptography public-key protocols; the other asserted patents-in-suit (the '574, '694, '084 and '409 patents) involved data encryption, payment-processing and business-method subject matter. Contemporaneous S.D.N.Y. filings caption her alongside Tibor L. Nagy, Jr. on the JPMorgan/Chase defense team (Feb.–Mar. 2014). The tracked record shows no appearances in pharmaceutical, life-sciences, or mechanical-arts patent matters, so her patent work, as documented, is narrow and financial-services/computer-hardware oriented rather than a broad technology portfolio.

Side preference. The plaintiff/defendant split is 0/4 — she appears exclusively on the defense side, representing an operating company (JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech) against a well-known assertion entity, Intellectual Ventures II. There is no tracked plaintiff-side or NPE/PAE representation. Two of her four tracked appearances are designated local counsel and one associate; the fourth carries no role in the data. Two of the four tracked entries are unnamed in the source data, so the case-level detail behind them cannot be verified independently.

Firm context. Her appearances are all attributed to Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig LLP, a small New York complex-commercial and white-collar litigation boutique rather than a patent specialty firm. A Long Island hiring announcement reports that a "Stephanie Suarez of Smithtown" moved from Dontzin Nagy & Fleissig, where she was an associate, to Lazer Aptheker Rosella & Yedid in Melville, N.Y. That is likely the same attorney, but the identification is not confirmed by a firm roster, so her post-DNF patent-litigation activity should be treated as unverified. There is no indication she has been in-house.

Notable matters and PTAB. Her most prominent tracked matter is Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:13-cv-03777 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), before Judge Alvin Hellerstein. Public reporting shows mixed results for her client: the court denied JPMorgan's summary-judgment motion of non-infringement on the '666 crypto-engine patent in June 2015, while other asserted patents were withdrawn by IV or held invalid. JPMorgan did file post-grant challenges to the '409 and '574 patents (CBM2014-00157; IPR2014-00672 and -673; IPR2015-01323), but the PTAB papers and depositions in those proceedings were handled by Goodwin Procter, not by Dontzin Nagy — no evidence shows Ms. Suarez personally appearing in IPR/PGR/CBM proceedings, and her PTAB experience cannot be confirmed from the available record.

Bar / education. Not reliably sourced for this attorney. Several New York attorneys practice under the name Stephanie Suarez (including a "Stephanie Marie Suarez," Harvard Law J.D. 2010, admitted in New York and Connecticut in 2011, later at Meltzer Lippe in Mineola), and the overlap with Long Island practice is suggestive but unconfirmed. Given the genuine risk of name confusion, I would not attribute those credentials to her without a primary source.

(Note: this summary relies on a limited tracked-appearance dataset — 4 appearances, two of them unnamed — plus court filings and trade-press coverage; it should be treated as directional rather than exhaustive.)