Jamie R. Lynn’s practice focuses on complex patent litigation in the areas of software, satellite communications, set-top box technology, IC power management, semiconductor design and manufacture, databases, and data warehousing. His experience ranges from pre-filing investigation all the way through appeal. He has also counseled clients and prosecuted patent applications in many fields, including: credit card payment systems, printing systems, cloud computing, Time Encoding Machines (specialized Analog-to-Digital converters), augmented reality systems, and semiconductor manufacturing.
Jamie approaches each case by first understanding his client's business needs and then developing and executing a strategy that fits the client. He has represented clients with different goals and different needs. Some clients want to posture for early settlement, while others want to file an IPR or focus on the case at the Markman stage. Yet others prefer to take the case to a jury verdict and appeal all the way to the Federal Circuit, if necessary. Representing both plaintiffs and defendants, Jamie has worked on, and been the day-to-day manager of, many trial teams and effectuated all of these strategies.
Prior to law school, Jamie worked as a software engineer on the unicast satellite distribution platform of a digital media distribution and management company that serviced the television, news, and entertainment industries.
- LG Display v. Obayashi Seiko (D. D.C. & Fed. Cir.) – represented Defendant corporation in complex commercial dispute and obtained dismissal that was affirmed by the Federal Circuit
- Custom Media Technology v. DISH Network (D. Del.) – represented Defendant in patent infringement litigation involving DVR technology; invalidated the patent at Markman
- Dragon Intellectual Property v. DISH Network (D. Del.) – represented Defendant in patent infringement litigation involving DVR technology; succeeded on non-infringement theory as result of Markman
- Realtime Data LLC v. Teradata Operations, Inc. (E.D. Tex. & C.D. Ca.) – represented Defendant against non-practicing entity on five patents directed to compression technology
- Kappa Digital v. Hughes Network Systems LLC (E.D. Tex.) – represented Defendant against non-practicing entity on patent related to the transmission of digital messages
- Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. et al v. Hughes Network Systems LLC et al (E.D. Tex) – representing defendants in competitor suit involving satellite internet protocols
- Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. et al v. Hughes Network Systems LLC et al (E.D. Tex.) – representing Defendants in competitor suit involving satellite internet protocols
- Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. v. DISH Network et al (E.D. Tex.) – represented Defendant through Markman against non-practicing entity with respect to five patents directed to marketing technology
- Qurio Holdings, Inc. v. DISH Network et al (E.D. Tex.) – represented Defendants in multi-patent suit against a non-practicing entity on set-top box and networking technology
- Kappa Digital v. Iridium et al (E.D. Tex.) – represented Defendants and convinced non-practicing entity to dismiss suit in early stages of litigation
- All-Tag v. Checkpoint (S.D. Fl.) – represented Defendant in competitor suit involving RF security labels used in the electronic article surveillance industry
- CRFD v. DISH Network (D. Del.) – represented Defendant in patent infringement litigation involving whole-home DVR features
- TQ Beta v. DISH Network et al (D. Del.) – represented Defendants in patent infringement litigation involving remote video display
- Pantaurus LLC v. Sling Media (E.D. Tex) – represented Defendant in patent infringement litigation involving Hadoop
- Pantaurus LLC v Samsung Electronics America (E.D. Tex.) – represented Defendant in patent infringement litigation involving FIPS 140-2 standard
- Powertech Technology, Inc. v. Tessera (N.D. Cal.) – represented Plaintiff in complex licensing dispute
- MOSAID v. Freescale et al. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Plaintiff in patent litigation involving semiconductor design, memory system, debugging hardware, and IC power management systems
- Teleconference Systems, LLC v. AT&T Corp., et al. (N.D. Cal.) – represented Defendants in multi-party patent litigation involving videoconference technology
- Whetstone v. Xerox et al. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Defendant in multi-party patent litigation involving printer-to-computer physical interfaces
- Demeter v. Fujitsu et al. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Defendant in multi-party patent litigation involving printer-to-computer physical interfaces
- WIAV Networks, LLC v. 3Com Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex) – represented Defendant in multi-party patent litigation involving 802.11 standard systems
- Agere Sys., Inc. v. Sony Corp. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Plaintiff in patent litigation involving semiconductor manufacture, 802.11 standard, MP3 standards, and Blu-ray laser diodes
- Keurig Inc. v. Kraft Foods Global Inc. et al. (D. Del.) – represented Defendant in patent litigation involving single-brew coffee machines
- Adiscov v. Kroll Ontrack Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – represented Defendant in patent litigation involving neural networks
Awards & Community
Recognized as a Washington D.C. Super Lawyer - Rising Star, 2015 & 2017
Intellectual Property Report
Idle Free v. Bergstrom - Turning the Tables on Patent-Holders AND Privity and Its Strategic Implications in PTAB TrialsFirm Thought Leadership
On June 5th at 11:30 am (CST), Houston partner Ali Dhanani and Washington, D.C. partner Jamie Lynn will be hosting a webinar titled "Blockchain: Rough Edges and Regulations"
Blockchain (or distributed ledger) technologies are here. Some may argue whether this is a paradigm-shifting change like the internet, or simply a solution in search of a problem.