Jamie’s success as a patent litigator stems from his belief that the best resolution to a patent dispute starts with a complete understanding of (1) the technology, (2) the competitive landscape, and (3) his client’s goals and budget.
Technology
Before law school, Jamie amassed nearly a decade of engineering experience, including seven years at Intel Corporation as a Senior Design Engineer. Jamie has designed custom SRAMs and caches, layout masks for subthreshold CMOS log-domain filters, a class-D audio amplifier, an automotive video capture module, a missile sensor test chamber, and a 4-DOF helicopter motion simulator. To support his hardware expertise, Jamie has coded in assembly and C, including optimizing MPEG-2 AAC audio decoder software to take advantage of SIMD instructions.
This technical fluency gives Jamie’s clients an edge. Opposing party experts and witnesses can’t hide behind jargon and obfuscation. Jamie drills down to the true technical distinctions to craft nuanced positions that win at trial and hold up on appeal. That’s why—for more than 10 years—clients have relied on Jamie for cases involving computer processors, Ethernet accelerators, cellular phones, wireless networks, GPS, image processing, video streaming, medical devices, interactive websites, computerized marketing, payment processing, and electronic gaming. If your case involves computer hardware, electronics, or semiconductors, Jamie will add value from day one.
Competitive Landscape
Jamie’s interest in technology doesn’t stop when he leaves the office. Jamie follows the computer and consumer electronics industries in his free time, granting him additional insight into new product development and industry trends. While his clients know their competitors best, Jamie can provide insight into related industries that may be using a client’s inventions. For clients defending against patent claims, Jamie’s industry knowledge can help him track down critical evidence from third parties and obscure sources.
Client Goals and Budget
Having worked with more than 60 clients in patent cases, Jamie understands that his client’s goals and budget shape nearly every aspect of litigation. So Jamie provides his clients options at each stage of litigation and explains key decision points that can affect settlement leverage.
“Bet-the-company” and other high-stakes cases may call for a no-stone-unturned approach. In these cases, Jamie works with his clients to consider every possible leverage point. Engineers are often the key witnesses in these cases. By speaking their language, Jamie helps fully prepare client witnesses for what can be a stressful deposition process while minimizing business disruption. Jamie also works with his clients’ engineering teams to design around competitor patents to cap damages and reduce or eliminate future royalties—further increasing his client’s bargaining position.
But not every case is a full-scale war for market dominance. Having served as a judicial clerk in the Eastern District of Texas, Jamie understands how patent assertion entities and other high-volume plaintiffs leverage local patent rules and cost of litigation asymmetries to collect settlements from dozens or even hundreds of defendants. For defendants in these cases, there can be strength in numbers. That’s why, on behalf of his clients, Jamie has managed and participated in numerous joint defense groups, which can reduce costs but might also limit his client’s options. Jamie helps his clients navigate the process and decide how active a role to take in the group. For additional leverage, Jamie has prepared petitions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that forced plaintiffs to walk away or settle at low cost.
Of course, complex patent litigation requires a team of tech-savvy attorneys and support staff. Jamie is just one of nearly 275 attorneys and scientists at Knobbe Martens that clients can rely on to strengthen their IP portfolios and resolve their IP disputes.
The University of Chicago Law School, J.D., Clinton Family and Douglas G. Baird Scholar
University of Florida, M.S., Electrical Engineering
University of Florida, B.S., Electrical Engineering, Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi
State Bar of California
State Bar of Texas
U.S. District Court – Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court – Northern District of Texas
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Chemical, Industrial & Materials
Electrical
HVAC & Passive Ventilation
Semiconductors
Communications Technology
Cellular Networking & Communications
Low-Power Networks
Television
Videoconferencing
Wireless Local Area Networks
Electrical, Semiconductor & Computer Technology
Electronics & Semiconductors
Energy
Energy Efficient Technologies
Lighting
Solar Power
Financial Services & Business Methods
Blockchain & Smart Contracts
Cryptocurrency & Encryption
Media, Advertising & Entertainment
Video Games and Interactive Entertainment
Medical Devices & Procedures
Vital Signs, Physiologic, & Hemodynamic Monitoring
Transportation & Vehicles
Air conditioning / Heating systems
Electronics (Audio / Video, Communication, Navigation, Security)
Due Diligence
Infringement Risk
Inter Partes Review (IPR)
ITC Litigation
Litigation
Patent Litigation
Patent Strategy & Prosecution
Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) Litigation
Patentability
Post-Grant
Tech Transactions
Trade Secret
Trade Secret & Employee Mobility Litigation
Trade Secret & Employee Mobility Litigation
