Thompson & Knight LLPPartner

no photo

About Jamie Herbert McDole

Jamie Herbert McDole is a lawyer practicing intellectual property, litigation: commercial, trial and 1 other area of law. Jamie received a B.S. degree from University of Iowa in 1996, and has been licensed for 14 years. Jamie practices at Thompson & Knight LLP in Dallas, TX.

Reviews for Jamie

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Intellectual Property
  • Other 3
    • Litigation: Commercial
    • Trial
    • Commercial

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Partner
    Firm Name
    Thompson & Knight LLP
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Transactions
    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.

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    2012, Texas
    Illinois
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
    U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
    U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
    U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law
    Class of 1999
    J.D.
    Other Education
    University of Iowa
    Class of 1996
    B.S.
    Chemical Engineering

Jamie Herbert McDole

Partner at Thompson & Knight LLP
Not yet reviewed

One Arts Plz., 1722 Routh Street, Ste. 1500Dallas, TX 75201-2533U.S.A.

Show on map

Lawyers Nearby

Ed Nelson III
Pro
Ed Nelson III
4.5
Intellectual Property lawyer
Joshua P. Odén III
Pro
Joshua P. Odén III
5.0
Intellectual Property lawyer

Free Consultation

Dave Wishnew
Pro
Dave Wishnew
4.8
Intellectual Property lawyer
Robert C. Jenevein
Pro
Robert C. Jenevein
4.4
Intellectual Property lawyer
Jerry C. Alexander
Pro
Jerry C. Alexander
5.0
Intellectual Property lawyer

Free Consultation

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message: