log in
Print | Back

Haynes and Boone, LLP

Jamie H. McDole

Jamie H. McDole

Partner

Haynes and Boone, LLP
Texas, U.S.A.

tel: +1 214 651 5121
Send an Email

Local Time: Sun. 23:14

Profile
Jamie McDole is an experienced first-chair trial lawyer in Haynes and Boone’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group. He has represented numerous Fortune 50 companies in scores of litigations throughout the country in both federal court and the International Trade Commission. His accomplishments are a direct result of his focus on client objectives, creative “out of the box” strategies, and attention to detail.

Jamie has led and participated in some of the largest patent infringement litigation in the United States. From the smartphone wars, check-imaging, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, or smart electricity meters, he has counseled his clients on pivotal issues in litigation and their businesses. Jamie prides himself on putting his client’s needs and goals first, and providing sound legal advice to achieve a successful outcome to disputes.

Jamie has also represented and counseled his clients on appeal at the Federal Circuit and in proceedings at the United States Patent & Trademark Office, including in new Inter Partes Review proceedings. Jamie works with Haynes and Boone’s Inter Partes Review (IPR) teams to develop a strategy that will achieve the client’s goals in both the IPR proceeding and in subsequent or ongoing litigation.

Jamie is often called upon to speak on various intellectual property issues.

Education

J.D., Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law, 1999
Chemical Engineer, B.S., University of Iowa, 1996
Areas of Practice
Professional Career

Significant Accomplishments

Amsted Industries Incorporated v. Tianrui Group Foundry et. al (S.D. Illinois). Recently filed complaint on behalf of client Amsted. Technology relates to manufacturing process for railway sideframe and bolsters. Favorable settlement achieved.

Accenture LLC et al. v. Guidewire, Inc. (E.D. Va and N.D. Cal.). Successfully moved to transfer defensive case from E.D. Virginia to N.D. California. Favorable settlement achieved.

In the Matter of Certain Mobile Communications And Computer Devices And Components Thereof (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-704). Asserted several patents on behalf of client Apple Inc. against Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Corp. Hearing concluded November 12, 2010. Favorable settlement achieved.

In the Matter of Certain Personal Data And Mobile Communications Devices And Related Software (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-710). Asserted several patents on behalf of clients Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. against Nokia, Inc., Nokia Corp., High Technology Computer Corp. (HTC), and Exedea, Inc. Hearing concluded April 2011. Prevailed at ITC.

In the Matter of Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-726). Defend client Research in Motion in Section 337 Investigation filed by FlashPoint Technologies relating to camera technology on mobile devices. Favorable settlement achieved.

In the Matter of Certain Authentication Systems, Including Software And Handheld Electronic Devices (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-697). Defended client Research in Motion in Section 337 Investigation filed by Prism Technologies relating to authentication systems in mobile devices. Favorable settlement achieved.

Visto Corp. v. Research in Motion et al. (E.D. Texas). Defended client in patent infringement suit relating to BlackBerry architecture and system and multiple patent claims and counter-assert RIM patents. Favorable settlement achieved.

Amgen et al v. Ariad Pharm. et. al. (District of Delaware). Assert declaratory judgment patent action on behalf of Amgen relating to anti-inflammatory drugs such as Enbrel and Kineret. Prevailed on summary judgment.

Baltimore Aircoil Company v. Evapco, Inc. (District of Maryland). Asserted two patents relating to evaporative condensers and coils. Favorable settlement achieved.

Beam Industries et al v. Canavac Systems, Inc. (N.D. Ohio) - Successfully defended Canavac Systems against patent infringement claims as first chair in case relating to central vacuum cleaning systems. Favorable settlement achieved.

LML Patent Corp. v. TeleCheck Services, Inc. et al. (District of Delaware). Technology and patents included electronic check conversion systems. Favorable settlement achieved.

InPro II Licensing v. Research in Motion, Ltd et al. (District of Delaware). Technology included personal digital assistants commonly known as the BlackBerry. Successfully defeated infringement claims, affirmed on appeal.

National Steel Car Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway et al. (E.D. of Pennsylvania). Technology included railcar design. Prevailed in preliminary injunction hearing and obtained favorable settlement.

Conoco and Conoco Specialty Products, Inc. v. Energy & Environmental International, Inc. et al. (S.D. of Texas). Technology includes polymer based flow enhancers for petroleum products. Prevailed at trial.

Hunter Engineering Co. v. Snap-On, Inc. et al., (E.D. of Wisconsin). Technology included car wheel alignment devices and electronics for same. Favorable settlement achieved.

In the Matter of Certain Set-Top Boxes And Components Thereof (USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-454). Defended Pioneer Corp. in Section 337 Investigation filed by Gemstar relating to electronic program guides for cable set-top boxes. Obtained favorable ruling from ITC and favorable settlement.

Great Lakes Chemical Co. v. Archimica SPC and BTP, LLC (District of Delaware). Technology included protease inhibitor drugs used to fight AIDS. Prevailed at trial.

Qualcomm Co. v. Motorola (Southern District of California). Technology included CDMA cell phone and base station technology. Favorable settlement achieved.

Micron Technology, Inc. v. Mosel Vitelic, Inc. (District of Delaware - J. Sleet). Technology included multiple types of processes and products related to semiconductor manufacturing. Favorable settlement achieved.

* Some of these representations were handled by Jamie prior to his joining Haynes and Boone.

WSG's members are independent firms and are not affiliated in the joint practice of professional services. Each member exercises its own individual judgments on all client matters.

HOME | SITE MAP | GLANCE | DISCLAIMER |  © World Services Group, 2018