Litigation

Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al. v. GAF Materials LLC

transferred

1:21-cv-10669

Filed
2021-05-04

Patents at issue (1)

9129376

Defendants (1)

Summary

EagleView and Pictometry sued GAF in New Jersey alleging infringement of nine EagleView patents, including the '376 patent. GAF moved to dismiss or transfer to Utah; the case was transferred to the District of Utah and docketed as 2:22-cv-00215, closing the New Jersey action.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build a verified overview.

Let me dig into the '376 patent specifically, the Utah case status, and any PTAB proceedings.

Let me check the current status/resolution of the Utah case and the PTAB history for the '376 patent.

Case Overview and Background

The parties are competing operating companies, not a patent-assertion campaign. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. (a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Rochester, New York) and Pictometry International Corp. (a Delaware corporation, also Rochester-based) are the plaintiffs. Per the D.N.J. transfer opinion, Eagle View "develop[s] technologies and products that produce aerial roof reports," and Pictometry developed aerial oblique image-capture and processing technology; the two merged in 2013 and now operate as EagleView Technology Corporation. EagleView is an operating company — it sells the reports at issue rather than merely licensing patents — with a portfolio it describes as 300+ patents and 3.5 billion high-resolution images covering 96% of the U.S. population, sold into insurance, construction, government, and solar verticals. GAF Materials LLC, the defendant, is a major North American roofing manufacturer headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey (its home district, which is why the plaintiffs filed here), with a second regular and established place of business in Cedar City, Utah. Because GAF also markets a rooftop aerial measurement product, the parties are direct competitors — this is a competitor-versus-competitor suit, not an NPE/PAE assertion. Plaintiffs were represented in New Jersey by Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga (Liza M. Walsh, Hector D. Ruiz) with Kirkland & Ellis (Adam R. Alper, Michael W. De Vries, Leslie Schmidt) pro hac vice; GAF by Archer & Greiner (Maureen T. Coghlan) with Skadden (John M. Neukom, Edward L. Tulin, Leslie A. Demers).

The accused technology is GAF's QuickMeasure roof reports and the software that generates them. The complaint frames the accused product as competing directly with EagleView's products "in the construction, government, insurance, and solar markets," and the asserted claims are largely computer-implementation claims (e.g., claim 1 of the '436 patent is "[a] computing system for generating a roof estimate report"). A key and unusual fact: GAF told the court it "does not make QuickMeasure reports, did not design or develop any of the QuickMeasure [s]oftware, and has never maintained or controlled any of the QuickMeasure [s]oftware," asserting the reports are generated through a partnership between Utah-based Nearmap and Minnesota-based Primitive LLC (d/b/a Pushpin) and merely white-labeled by GAF, whose role is "essentially limited to sales and marketing." GAF further claimed it "did not create and does not even have access to the source code, specifications, schematics, [or] formulas" behind the product — a position Judge Bumb called "very concern[ing]" and which left the court unable to say whether Nearmap or Pushpin actually developed the accused software.

The asserted patents: nine in the operative pleading, though this database lists only the '376. The original complaint and the July 23, 2021 Amended Complaint asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,436; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,542,880; 8,670,961; 9,129,376; 9,514,568; 10,528,960; and 10,685,149. Note the discrepancy with the case metadata here, which identifies only the '376 patent — that is the focus of this review but understates the breadth of the pleadings. Verified technical sketches: the '376 ("Pitch determination systems and methods for aerial roof estimation," issued Sept. 8, 2015, inventor Chris Pershing, assigned to Eagle View Technologies) claims interactive user-interface tools — in the claims tried in the earlier Xactware case, a "pitch determination marker" such as an "envelope tool" manipulated to determine roof-section pitch from aerial imagery; the '436 claims a computing system that correlates a top-plan and a non-stereoscopic oblique aerial image to build a 3D roof model and output an annotated roof estimate report; the '840 claims a computer-implemented method displaying an aerial image and a pitch determination marker; and the '149 is a later continuation in the same pitch-determination family (issued June 16, 2020). I could not verify individual claim scope for the '152, '880, '961, and '568 from the sources retrieved, beyond the fact that the '152 was, in the parallel Nearmap litigation, characterized by the parties as involving "overlaying a roof outline onto aerial images" (a party characterization, not a court holding).

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed May 4, 2021 in the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, Civil No. 21-10669 (RMB/SAK), before U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb and Magistrate Judge Sharon A. King. GAF filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 31) and a § 1404(a) motion to transfer to Utah (Dkt. 32) on Aug. 25, 2021; the court heard argument Jan. 21, 2022 (Dkt. 60) and granted transfer in a March 25, 2022 opinion (Eagle View Techs. v. GAF Materials, LLC, No. 21-10669 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2022), Dkt. 65), dismissing the motion to dismiss as moot; the New Jersey case closed March 28, 2022 and was docketed in Utah as 2:22-cv-00215-TS-DAO before Judge Ted Stewart and Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg. In Utah, Judge Stewart denied GAF's § 101 motion to dismiss all nine patents without prejudice on Dec. 12, 2022 (Dkt. 104); on July 17, 2023 he granted GAF leave to add patent misuse, inequitable conduct, and a Sherman Act antitrust counterclaim (Dkt. 161), and a July 25, 2023 amended scheduling order set claim construction briefing for December 2023–January 2024, with a January 2024 sealing order (Dkt. 267). The case is notable on several fronts: (1) venue strategy — EagleView filed against GAF and Nearmap the same day, asserting mostly the same patents, and that overlap is what defeated EagleView's home-forum advantage; (2) IPR/PTAB linkage — Xactware petitioned for IPR of the '376 in IPR2016-00587 (petition filed Feb. 8, 2016), and the record shows a Sept. 30, 2016 decision denying a request for rehearing; I could not confirm the underlying institution decision from the sources retrieved, so treat the outcome as unverified; (3) the Xactware shadow — claims of the '436, '840, and '376 patents were tried to a $125M jury verdict, trebled to $375M, in Eagle View Techs. v. Xactware Solutions, No. 15-7025 (D.N.J.) (2021 WL 568045), which settled in November 2021 during Federal Circuit oral-argument scrutiny, and the confidential Verisk/Xactware settlement later became a discovery weapon underpinning GAF's inequitable-conduct and antitrust counterclaims; and (4) market impact — U.S. aerial roof reports are a high-stakes segment for property insurance and solar, and news of the parallel Nearmap suit knocked roughly 23% off Nearmap's share price in May 2021 (Nearmap later settled with EagleView in May 2026). I could not verify a final resolution of the GAF case itself; the docket activity I retrieved runs through 2024, and the "closed" status reported by third-party aggregators is not confirmed by a court order.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case through web searches across the sources you mentioned.

Let me dig deeper into the Utah proceedings, PTAB activity, and the current posture.

Let me find the current posture of the Utah case and IPR details on the '376 patent.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Eagle View Techs. v. GAF Materials

Note on scope and sourcing. The case metadata flags U.S. Patent No. 9,129,376 (the "'376 patent") as the patent at issue, but the record is clear that EagleView asserted a portfolio of nine patents against GAF, with the '376 patent as one of them. Where I could not verify a fact (e.g., a Markman ruling on the merits, a trial date, or settlement), I say so explicitly rather than infer. The New Jersey docket (1:21-cv-10669) and the transferee Utah docket (2:22-cv-00215-TS-DAO) are the anchors; the opinion text is drawn from the public RECAP filings and the Justia/CourtListener copies.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (D.N.J., 2021)

  • 2021-05-04 — Complaint filed. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. sued GAF Materials LLC in the District of New Jersey (Camden Vicinage), Civil No. 1:21-cv-10669 (RMB/SAK) — District Judge Renee Marie Bumb, Magistrate Judge Sharon A. King. The accused instrumentality was GAF QuickMeasure roof reports and the software behind them.
  • Nine patents asserted (all "aerial roof estimation" family): Nos. 8,078,436; 8,170,840; 8,209,152; 8,542,880; 8,670,961; 9,129,376; 9,514,568; 10,528,960; and 10,685,149. Asserted claims included the '376 patent's pitch-determination claims.
  • 2021-07-23 — First Amended Complaint filed (D.E. 11 on the N.J. docket; D.E. 11 in the Utah docket). Theories included direct infringement, induced infringement (GAF's promotional/instructional materials allegedly inducing end users to perform claimed methods), and willful infringement based on GAF's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents (press coverage, EagleView's website, competition).
  • Counsel. For Plaintiffs: Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Adam R. Alper, Michael W. De Vries, Gianni Cutri, Leslie M. Schmidt, Brandon H. Brown, Natalie Flechsig) and Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP (Liza M. Walsh, Hector Daniel Ruiz). For GAF: Maureen Theresa Coghlan (N.J.). In Utah, Juliette P. White (Parsons Behle & Latimer) and Samuel Straight (Ray Quinney & Nebeker) appeared for GAF.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance in New Jersey

  • 2021-08-25 — GAF filed two motions: (i) a Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 31) and (ii) a Motion to Transfer to the District of Utah under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (D.E. 32). GAF argued that QuickMeasure was a white-labeled product developed outside New Jersey through a partnership between Utah-based Nearmap US, Inc. and Minnesota-based Primitive LLC d/b/a Pushpin, so GAF's role was "essentially limited to sales and marketing" — the "center of gravity" was therefore outside New Jersey.
  • 2022-01-21 — Oral argument on both motions (D.E. 60).
  • 2022-03-25 — Transfer granted. Judge Bumb issued a written opinion (D.E. 65) granting the § 1404(a) motion and denying the motion to dismiss as moot. The court called it "an unavoidably close call" and found "many similarities" between the GAF action and the concurrent Utah action EagleView filed the same day against Nearmap (D. Utah No. 2:21-cv-00283). Applying the Jumara private/public-interest factors, the court held that practical considerations — avoiding duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings — "weigh[ed] very strongly in favor of transfer." Notably, the court rejected EagleView's argument that its prior Xactware trial experience in New Jersey (§ 101 and claim-construction familiarity) counseled against transfer.

3. Utah Proceedings (2:22-cv-00215-TS-DAO)

a. § 101 Motion to Dismiss (denied)

  • Spring 2022 — GAF moved to dismiss all nine patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (D.E. 75), arguing the claims were directed to abstract ideas ("automated image retrieval," "3D model generation," "pitch determination," etc.).
  • 2022-05-09 — EagleView opposition (D.E. 99) with a ten-exhibit appendix including the patents-in-suit and the Xactware § 101 rulings.
  • 2022-12-12 — Motion denied. Judge Stewart held GAF had not shown the claims were "directed to" abstract ideas at Alice step one, distinguishing Yu v. Apple and finding GAF failed to "meaningfully distinguish" the patents from McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco. (Memorandum Decision and Order, D.E. 104/104-1; later cited by EagleView in the parallel Roofr litigation as persuasive authority.)
  • 2022-12-27 — GAF filed its original Answer.

b. Amended Answer & Counterclaims (patent misuse, inequitable conduct, antitrust)

c. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

  • 2023-09-26 — EagleView served Final Infringement Contentions under LPR 3.1, asserting no more than 8 claims per patent (down from the initial ~10-per-patent cap).
  • 2023-10-03 — Fact discovery scheduled to close (later extended; the schedule was amended multiple times — D.E. 179, 228, 309, 347).
  • 2023-10-24 — GAF served Final Non-Infringement Contentions (LPR 3.2).
  • 2023-10-27 — GAF moved to limit asserted claims or expand the Markman briefing (D.E. 207 opposition). EagleView opposed, arguing the Local Patent Rules already cap terms at 10 and that the parallel Nearmap case had proceeded with only 9 terms — so there was no "good cause" to deviate.
  • 2024-01-31 — Discovery order favoring GAF. Magistrate Judge Oberg granted GAF's short-form motion to compel (D.E. 188; order at D.E. 277), requiring EagleView to produce documents identifying third-party developers, manufacturers, and sellers of EagleView's products. GAF argued such evidence was relevant to rebut EagleView's commercial-success/industry-praise evidence on nonobviousness (i.e., the success was attributable to third-party manufacturing, exclusivity, and marketing, not the patented features). Hearing held 2023-10-16.
  • 2024 — Rule 30(b)(6) fight over the Verisk settlement. GAF moved to compel (and sought a 3-hour deposition of EagleView's CEO) after EagleView's corporate designee testified unprepared on the negotiation of the settlement — the factual predicate for GAF's misuse defense and antitrust counterclaim. The court granted the motion in part, ordering a one-hour continued Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of a properly prepared designee, but refused to let GAF dictate the CEO as the designee (D.E. re motion at 247).
  • 2023-03-14 — Consolidation denied. The court had earlier denied EagleView's request to consolidate the GAF and Nearmap cases for claim construction, holding that "there are patents and claims uncommon to both suits that will raise different issues" (Dkt. 267 in the Nearmap case). EagleView renewed a consolidation motion in April 2025, seeking to combine the two Markman hearings; I could not verify the outcome of that renewed motion.

d. Claim Construction (Markman) — reached, but no merits ruling located

4. Parallel PTAB Proceedings and Their Effect

Two waves of IPRs bear on the asserted patents.

Wave 1 — Xactware/Verisk (2016–2017): mostly denied, protecting the portfolio.
After EagleView's 2015 suit against Xactware/Verisk, the defendants filed serial IPRs. The Board denied institution on the key patents:

Wave 2 — Nearmap (2022–2026): the tables turned, with Federal Circuit affirmance.

  • Nearmap US, Inc. petitioned for IPR on the '961 and '436 patents, challenging them as obvious over Littleworth, Linder, and AutoCAD 2005 for Dummies (Middlebrook).
  • PTAB instituted and found the challenged claims unpatentable under § 103 (written decisions in 2023; e.g., '961 Decision, 2023 WL 8651434).
  • 2026-02-03 — Federal Circuit affirmed (Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. Nearmap US, Inc., No. 24-1488, Chen, J., nonprecedential). The court rejected EagleView's construction arguments that "calculate a pitch" / "determining a pitch" require a particular level of accuracy, and upheld the obviousness findings on substantial evidence.
  • Effect on the GAF case: These decisions invalidate claims of two patents that overlap directly with the GAF case — the '436 patent was one of the three "Xactware-verdict" patents also asserted against GAF, and the '961 patent was asserted against both GAF and Nearmap. I could not confirm how, or whether, the PTAB/Federal Circuit outcome has been formally applied in the GAF docket (e.g., by stipulation, entry of judgment on those patents, or amendment of contentions). This is the single most important open question for the GAF case's remaining exposure.

5. Final Disposition / Present Posture

  • No trial, verdict, judgment, settlement, or appeal on the merits of the GAF action has been identified. EagleView's claims against GAF remain live.
  • As of the available record (mid-2026), the case is in the claim-construction phase in the District of Utah, with a Markman hearing held (or scheduled) on 2025-08-26 and no merits construction ruling located. Fact discovery closed; the case is well into the merits-preparation track.
  • The most consequential extrinsic development is the 2026-02-03 Federal Circuit affirmance of the Nearmap IPRs invalidating claims of the '436 and '961 patents — two of the nine patents shared with (or uniquely asserted in) the GAF case. GAF's invalidity position is substantially strengthened by that ruling to the extent those patents remain in the GAF case.

Caveats / Unverified Points

  1. No Markman ruling on the merits for the GAF case was located; the last confirmed event is the 2025-07-25 hearing order.
  2. No trial date, verdict, JMOL/new-trial, fee, or settlement was found — the case appears active, not resolved.
  3. The outcome of the April 2025 renewed motion to consolidate the Nearmap and GAF Markman proceedings is unverified.
  4. Whether the Fed Cir/Nearmap IPR invalidation has been formally applied in the GAF action is unverified.
  5. IPRs specific to the flagged '376 patent beyond the 2016 Xactware denial (IPR2016-00587) were not found in this search; a fuller PACER/PTAB (PATRIR) query is recommended to confirm there are no later '376 petitions.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this case across both the New Jersey docket and the transferee Utah action.

Good initial leads. Now let me dig into the specific attorneys and their firms, plus the Utah plaintiff-side team.

Let me dig deeper into the plaintiff-side team in both courts and verify the Kirkland & Ellis co-counsel role.

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiffs — Eagle View Technologies, Inc. & Pictometry International Corp.

Important framing note: This case has two dockets. The New Jersey action (1:21-cv-10669) was closed when the court granted GAF's § 1404(a) motion and transferred the case to Utah, where it was docketed as 2:22-cv-00215-TS-DAO (D. Utah, Judge Ted Stewart / Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg). Plaintiff-side counsel appears in the Docket 10 pro hac vice motion (June 2021) in New Jersey, carrying directly into the Utah action. Below I separate what the dockets show from what I could not verify.

A. New Jersey action — 1:21-cv-10669 (RMB/SAK) — filed 5/4/2021, transferred 2022

Local / New Jersey counsel — Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP (Newark, NJ)

Attorney Role Notes
Liza M. Walsh New Jersey local counsel; signed the original Complaint (Dkt. 1) and the PHV motion (Dkt. 10) Founding/managing partner of Walsh Pizzi. Chambers Band 1 (Litigation, NJ) and Band 3 (IP, NJ). She led the EagleView trial team in the closely related Eagle View Techs. v. Xactware Solutions, 1:15-cv-07025 (D.N.J.), which produced a $125M willful-infringement jury verdict and a TRO — the same patents ('436, '840, '376) at issue here. 30+ years of NJ federal/IP practice.
Hector Daniel Ruiz New Jersey counsel; Notice of Appearance on behalf of both plaintiffs (Dkt. 3) Walsh Pizzi attorney and a member of the Xactware trial team alongside Walsh.
(also on the Walsh team in the related litigation, per firm press materials) Eleonore Ofosu-Antwi Walsh Pizzi; appeared in Xactware. Not confirmed as an appearance in this NJ docket.

Lead / national patent counsel — Kirkland & Ellis LLP

The plaintiffs moved under Dkt. 10 (Consent MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice), which attaches individual certifications for the following Kirkland attorneys — this is the authoritative list of the out-of-state trial team:

Attorney Role Notes
Adam R. Alper Lead trial counsel (pro hac vice, Dkt. 10, Cert. #1) Kirkland partner. Co-lead of the Xactware trial team; American Lawyer "Litigator of the Week" (Oct. 2019) for the $125M EagleView verdict.
Michael W. De Vries Lead trial counsel (pro hac vice, Dkt. 10, Cert. #2) Kirkland partner; co-lead of Xactware; the article "Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Team Soars with $125M Win for EagleView" names Alper, De Vries and Cutri.
Gianni Cutri Trial counsel (pro hac vice, Dkt. 10, Cert. #3) Kirkland partner; Xactware trial team (client-story/trial presentation role).
Brandon H. Brown Trial counsel (pro hac vice, Dkt. 10, Cert. #5) Kirkland partner; in Xactware he presented the technical expert and crossed the defendant's technical witness.
Leslie M. Schmidt Kirkland team (pro hac vice, Dkt. 10, Cert. #4) Listed among the Kirkland attorneys representing EagleView in Xactware.
Natalie Flechsig Kirkland team (pro hac vice, Dkt. 10, Cert. #6) Kirkland attorney on the EagleView matter.

Note on office locations: the docket entries do not list firm addresses for the Kirkland team, and I was unable to complete verification of individual office assignments in this research pass. Public firm reporting places Alper, De Vries, Schmidt (and, per the Walsh press release naming of the broader Xactware team) in Kirkland's California offices and Cutri/Brown in its Chicago office — treat those office locations as provisionally sourced, not docket-confirmed. Kirkland's representation of EagleView in the related Xactware litigation is well documented (Kirkland press PDF; American Lawyer, Oct. 11, 2019).

B. Transferee Utah action — 2:22-cv-00215-TS-DAO — docketed 3/28/2022

The Utah docket shows plaintiff-side pro hac vice admissions continuing after transfer:

Attorney Role Notes
Joy Wang Plaintiffs' counsel (pro hac vice) Admitted by order at Dkt. 92, granting the motion at Dkt. 88. Firm not confirmed from the sources retrieved in this pass.
Patrick R. Colsher Plaintiffs' counsel (pro hac vice) Admitted by order at Dkt. 96, granting the motion at Dkt. 94. Firm not confirmed — I was unable to complete the firm-verification search; do not assume affiliation.

Caveats for Utah: The UniCourt docket summary I retrieved reflects the PHV orders but not the full appearance list or the signature blocks of plaintiffs' Utah filings (e.g., the opposition to GAF's motion to limit asserted claims, Dkt. 202–220 briefing, and the sealing opinions). Additional plaintiff-side names beyond Walsh/Ruiz/Kirkland/Wang/Colsher almost certainly appear in those signature blocks but were not verified here.

C. Items I could NOT verify (stated explicitly, not invented)

  • No in-house counsel for EagleView or Pictometry is identified in any retrieved docket entry. I did not find a named EagleView general counsel or in-house litigation attorney on the docket.
  • Firm and office for Joy Wang and Patrick R. Colsher — unconfirmed.
  • Defendant's counsel (for context only, since you asked about plaintiffs): GAF is represented by Maureen Theresa Coghlan (Notice of Appearance, Dkt. 8; the NJ docket and UniCourt list her) and, in Utah, Michael K. Erickson of Ray Quinney & Nebeker P.C., Salt Lake City (signature block on GAF's Dkt. 202 motion), with "[a]dditional counsel listed in signature block" not captured.
  • Some related briefing was filed under seal (confidential Verisk/Xactware settlement and Pushpin/GAF commercial terms), per the sealing opinion at CourtListener opinion 10220240 — but that order concerns exhibits and briefing, not the identity of plaintiffs' counsel, so it does not obscure the appearance list.

D. Sources

Bottom line: Plaintiffs' counsel of record comprise (1) Kirkland & Ellis LLP as lead national patent counsel — Adam R. Alper, Michael W. De Vries, Gianni Cutri, Brandon H. Brown, Leslie M. Schmidt, and Natalie Flechsig, admitted pro hac vice via Dkt. 10 — and (2) Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP (Newark, NJ) as New Jersey local counsel, led by Liza M. Walsh and Hector D. Ruiz, who signed the Complaint. After transfer, Joy Wang and Patrick R. Colsher were admitted pro hac vice in the District of Utah for the plaintiffs (Dkt. 92 and 96).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and counsel for the defendant in this case.

Bottom line

For the captioned New Jersey action (D.N.J. 1:21-cv-10669, Camden Vicinage), the only GAF attorney whose appearance is documented on the public docket is Maureen T. Coghlan of Archer & Greiner P.C., Voorhees, N.J. — GAF's New Jersey local counsel of record. GAF's out-of-state lead patent team is documented on the docket of the transferee Utah case (2:22-cv-00215), where Edward L. Tulin of Gish PLLC (New York) is identified as GAF's counsel, alongside other attorneys admitted pro hac vice. I could not confirm a separate NJ appearance by Gish/Tulin (see caveats below).

1. New Jersey action (the case as captioned) — 1:21-cv-10669, D.N.J. (Bumb, C.J.; Mag. J. Sharon A. King)

Maureen Theresa Coghlan — local counsel of record (defendant GAF Materials LLC)

  • Firm/office: Archer & Greiner P.C., 1025 Laurel Oak Road, Voorheens/Voorhees, NJ 08043 (South Jersey office; Archer is headquartered in Haddonfield, NJ).
  • Docket basis: Notice of Appearance on behalf of GAF Materials LLC, Dkt. No. 8 (June 2021), and "Application and Proposed Order for Clerk's Order to extend time to answer as to Defendant GAF Materials, LLC," Dkt. No. 9 — the entry that added her as GAF's attorney of record and extended GAF's answer deadline to July 27, 2021. Case-management/aggregator records for the NJ docket list her as the sole "Defendant Attorney." (unicourt.com case summary; Archer firm bio PDF.)
  • Role: Local counsel (Archer's website describes her as Co-Chair of Archer's New Jersey Local Counsel Practice, i.e., the firm is routinely retained to appear for out-of-state litigation teams).
  • Relevant experience: Seasoned federal defense litigator in D.N.J.; her practice description expressly includes patents among complex civil litigation areas (along with environmental, securities, class actions, data breach). Notably, she clerked for the Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, the very judge who presided over this case and who authored the transfer opinion — a relevant familiarity point. She also clerked for Judge George L. Seltzer (N.J. App. Div., ret.).

Lead/national counsel in the NJ phase — not confirmed. The substantive defense motions in New Jersey — GAF's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 31) and Motion to Transfer to the District of Utah under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Dkt. No. 32), both filed August 25, 2021, and argued January 21, 2022 (Dkt. No. 60) — were filed by a defense team that does not appear in the public appearance records I could retrieve for this docket. The only defense-side pro hac vice motion in the NJ docket that I could verify was filed by the plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 10, consent motion for leave to appear pro hac vice for Alper, De Vries, Cutri, Schmidt, Brown, and Flechsig — the plaintiffs' team). I could not locate a corresponding GAF pro hac vice filing in the NJ docket, so I will not name GAF's out-of-state NJ counsel without a source. This gap should be verified against the actual signature blocks of Dkt. Nos. 31–32 and the responsive briefs on PACER.

2. GAF's litigation team as documented in the transferee Utah action (2:22-cv-00215-TS-DAO, D. Utah)

The New Jersey case was transferred to the District of Utah (order on the transfer motion, Dkt. No. 65 in D.N.J.; case closed in New Jersey 3/28/2022) and docketed as Eagle View Technologies, Inc. v. GAF Materials LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00215 (D. Utah, Judge Ted Stewart; Mag. J. Daphne A. Oberg). Counsel appearing for GAF there:

Edward L. Tulin — lead patent counsel for GAF

  • Firm/office: Gish PLLC, 41 Madison Avenue, Floor 31, New York, NY 10010 (intellectual-property litigation boutique); previously Counsel at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (New York) for more than 14 years.
  • Docket/press basis: Identified as GAF's attorney in this dispute by Bloomberg/VitalLaw's IP Law Daily report on the Utah antitrust counterclaim ("Edward L. Tulin (Gish PLLC) for GAF Materials LLC," July 19, 2023, covering the July 17, 2023 order allowing GAF to amend its answer to add patent-misuse, inequitable-conduct, and Sherman Act antitrust counterclaims). Gish PLLC's own bio for Tulin states he is "defending GAF … in a patent infringement suit involving roof estimation technology in the District of Utah."
  • Relevant patent litigation experience: Lead counsel for GAF in Kirsch Research & Development, LLC v. GAF Materials LLC — IPR2021-00192 (PTAB final written decision May 24, 2022 invalidating all claims of U.S. Patent 6,308,482) and the ensuing Federal Circuit appeal, No. 22-2063 (affirmed May 2, 2024, Judge Stark). Also defended GAF in ITC/D.N.J. composite-roofing patent matters and PTAB proceedings. Former law clerk to Judge Christopher J. Burke (D. Del.).

Jay Neukom — admitted pro hac vice for GAF in Utah

  • D. Utah docket order granting pro hac vice admission of "Attorney Jay Neukom for GAF Materials LLC" (Dkt. No. 98, granting Dkt. No. 97). Caveat: I could not confirm his firm from the sources retrieved; treat his firm affiliation as unverified.

In-house counsel: No GAF in-house attorney is identified in the materials I could access. Given that GAF (Standard Industries) operates its global headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey — the fact the D.N.J. opinion emphasizes in noting GAF sued "in its home District" while seeking transfer — there may be in-house counsel involved, but I found no named in-house lawyer and will not invent one.

Utah local counsel for GAF: Not identified in the search results. (The Parsons Behle & Latimer attorneys, e.g., Juliette P. White, appear as plaintiffs' counsel, and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher appears for plaintiffs in the related Nearmap case — do not confuse these with GAF's team.)

3. Sealing / appearance caveats

  • Portions of the Utah record are sealed, including GAF's amended answer/counterclaim briefing and a settlement agreement filed as an exhibit (motions to seal at Dkt. Nos. 116, 118, 119, 128, 136, 142, 168, 180 in D. Utah); any counsel appearing only in connection with sealed filings may not be reflected in public docket text.
  • The NJ docket aggregator snapshot I relied on was last updated July 3, 2021, i.e., before GAF's August 2021 motions — so later-appearing NJ counsel (if any) would not show up in that snapshot. Counsel lists should be re-verified on PACER/CM-ECF for both dockets (D.N.J. 1:21-cv-10669 and D. Utah 2:22-cv-00215) before being relied on.

Sources

  • D.N.J. Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 10, 31, 32, 60, 65 (1:21-cv-10669), as summarized at unicourt.com case record and Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. GAF Materials LLC, No. 21-10669 (RMB/SAK), transfer opinion (Dkt. 65), available at law.justia.com and storage.courtlistener.com.
  • Archer & Greiner, Maureen T. Coghlan bio (archerlaw.com PDF); Best Lawyers/Martindale profiles.
  • VitalLaw IP Law Daily, "PATENT—D. Utah: Antitrust counterclaim added to aerial photograph patent suit" (July 19, 2023) — identifies Tulin/Gish for GAF.
  • Gish PLLC team page (Edward Tulin) and firm news on Kirsch R&D v. GAF Materials, Fed. Cir. No. 22-2063; PTAB IPR2021-00192 service-information filing listing Tulin as lead counsel for GAF.
  • D. Utah docket entries (Dkt. 98 pro hac vice order for Jay Neukom; sealing orders), via unicourt.com and CourtListener/Justia.

Confidence: High for Coghlan (NJ appearance of record) and for Tulin as GAF's patent counsel in the transferred/Utah phase. Medium for Neukom (order confirmed; firm unverified). Low/unconfirmed for any NJ pro hac vice defense counsel and for in-house counsel.