Egolf + Ferlic + Martinez + Harwood

I'll research this firm before drafting. Let me run several searches in parallel.

The initial results suggest a possible data mismatch — let me dig deeper on the specific case and attorney.

Summary: Egolf + Ferlic + Martinez + Harwood, LLC — Patent Litigation Profile

Important data caveat up front: the single tracked appearance for this firm is anomalous relative to everything publicly verifiable about it. I would not represent this firm as having a patent litigation practice without further verification. Details below.

Firm overview. Egolf + Ferlic + Martinez + Harwood, LLC is a small plaintiffs'-side trial firm headquartered at 123 W. San Francisco St., Santa Fe, New Mexico, with staff presence in Albuquerque, Las Cruces and Taos. It is neither BigLaw nor an IP boutique. Its own public practice description (as recited in a New Mexico State Ethics Commission filing and firm listings) covers personal injury, medical malpractice, wrongful death, civil rights, whistleblower, employment, family law, and water/land use — with no stated patent or IP practice area. Named partners include Brian Egolf (former Speaker of the New Mexico House, 2017–2023), Katherine "Kate" Ferlic, Kristina Martinez and Kyle Harwood. Individual attorney recognition is limited to state-level plaintiffs' work (Super Lawyers for Egolf/medical malpractice and Ferlic/personal injury; Best Lawyers for Martinez/family law). I found no AmLaw 200 ranking, no Chambers IP ranking, and no published attorney count or revenue figure for this firm; treat it as a regional plaintiffs' shop, not an IP specialist.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's own website and directory profiles do not describe a patent practice. The only IP-adjacent signal is the tracked matter — EcoFactor, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. — which sits in the smart-thermostat / networked HVAC energy-management space (EcoFactor's patents cover server-assisted temperature modeling and demand-response control of residential HVAC). That is the full extent of the technology story supported by the record. There is no public basis to attribute Wi-Fi standards, pharma, semiconductor, or mechanical patent work to this firm. A third-party salary aggregator (Salary.com) hosts a job description referencing "patent litigation work … US Patent and Trademark Office and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" under this firm's name, but aggregator postings of this kind are unreliable and I could not corroborate it against the firm's own site or court records — I would not rely on it.

Side preference. The tracked data shows 1 plaintiff-side appearance and 0 defendant-side, in an of counsel capacity. That is arithmetically consistent with the EcoFactor/Emerson dispute, where EcoFactor was the complainant (i.e., in the plaintiff/complainant posture). But a sample size of one, in an of-counsel role, does not support any conclusion about a "preference." What can be said is narrower: the firm's public identity is uniformly plaintiffs'-side, and the one tracked patent matter is also plaintiff/complainant-side. There is no evidence of defense-side work for operating companies.

Notable cases and outcomes. In the EcoFactor/Emerson dispute, the procedural posture matters: Emerson sued EcoFactor for declaratory judgment of non-infringement in D. Del. (No. 1:21-cv-00317, filed Mar. 1, 2021, asserting five EcoFactor patents), and voluntarily dismissed that action on April 15, 2021. EcoFactor pursued Emerson instead via the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-1258). That investigation ended badly for EcoFactor: the Commission affirmed ALJ Cameron Elliot's initial determination of no Section 337 violation, finding EcoFactor failed to establish infringement or validity of all asserted patents (voted June 22, 2022). For context on the broader EcoFactor campaign — not the firm's own case — EcoFactor won a $20,019,300 jury verdict against Google on the '327 patent in W.D. Tex., which the Federal Circuit affirmed in part but then vacated on rehearing en banc over unreliable damages testimony, and the Supreme Court denied cert on October 20, 2025. I found no docket entry, opinion, or press report tying Egolf + Ferlic + Martinez + Harwood to any of these filings — the Delaware DJ counsel of record were from Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell.

PTAB / IPR practice and key partners. There is no publicly verifiable IPR, PGR, or other PTAB filing attributable to this firm, and no reported scale for such a practice. The PTAB proceedings in the EcoFactor patent family were filed by opposing parties (e.g., Google's IPR2022-00538), prosecuted by national IP firms. On leadership: the firm has no identifiable patent litigation practice leader. The only name tied to the tracked matter is Vincent J. Egolf, listed as of counsel; he does not appear on the firm's public attorney roster. Note a likely source of confusion for your review: USPTO records list a Vincent S. Egolf (Reg. No. 51,131) of Egolf IP Law, PLC, Hudsonville, Michigan — a patent prosecution practice whose top clients include Onkos Surgical and Safeguard Medical — and a "Vince Egolf" appeared as IP Counsel for Perrigo Company at a 2016 industry meeting. Whether the tracked "Vincent J. Egolf" is the same person, a different attorney, or a records-conflation artifact is not resolvable from public sources, and the Santa Fe firm should not be credited with a Michigan patent practice on this record.

Bottom line for your file: the appearance record supports one of-counsel patent matter for a Santa Fe plaintiffs' firm with no publicly documented IP practice. Before relying on this firm as a patent litigation resource, I'd recommend confirming (a) Vincent J. Egolf's actual affiliation and bar/USPTO registration, and (b) whether the EcoFactor attribution is a name-matching error between two unrelated "Egolf" entities.