People

Overview

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 regularly appears in front of numerous district courts, the International Trade Commission, and the Federal Circuit. 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 challenge the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or focus on the case at the Markman stage. Yet others prefer to take the case to a jury verdict and appeal, if necessary. Representing both plaintiffs and defendants, Jamie has led many trial teams and effectuated all of these strategies.

Jamie also commits substantial efforts to pro bono work for various Innocence Projects. His cases frequently involve challenging convictions for arson murder that were based on long-held, but now debunked, fire science.

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.

Admission & Affiliations

  • District of Columbia Bar
  • New York State Bar
  • Massachusetts Bar
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office
  • United States Supreme Court
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • United States District Court for Massachusetts
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • J.D., Franklin Pierce Law Center 2006
    magna cum laude 

    Senior Editor, IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review 

  • B.S., computer science, Georgia Institute of Technology 2003
    with high honors

Experience

  • ClearPlay, Inc. v. DISH Network, LLC (D. Utah) – represented Defendant in four-patent litigation involving set top box technology at the District Court as well as before the PTO in seeking ex parte reexamination
  • Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc. (D. N.J.) – represented Defendant in four-patent infringement litigation involving mobile gaming technology
  • Diogenes Limited & Colossus (IOM) Ltd. v. DraftKings Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Defendant in eight-patent infringement litigation involving features of online gaming
  • AG 18, LLC v. DraftKings Inc. (D. N.J.) – represented Defendant in five-patent infringement litigation involving mobile gaming
  • Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and Systems Containing Same, 337-TA-1265 (International Trade Commission) – represented DISH in asserting four patents related to media streaming technology before the ITC
  • Dragon Intellectual Property v. DISH Network (D. Del.) – represented Defendant in patent infringement litigation involving DVR technology before the District Court, PTAB, and ultimately Federal Circuit; succeeded by invalidating patent before the PTAB and also on non-infringement theory as result of Markman; successfully argued prevailing party status before the Federal Circuit; and obtained exceptional case finding against Plaintiff with award of attorney fees
  • Brother Industries, Ltd. v. Linkyo Corp. (C.D. Cal.) – represented Plaintiff in patent declaratory judgment action involving print toner cartridge technology
  • Innovative Foundry Technologies LLC v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation et al (W.D. Tex.) – represented Defendant DISH in four-patent infringement litigation involving semiconductor manufacture technology
  • Certain Toner Cartridges, Components Thereof, and Systems Containing Same, 337-TA-1174 (International Trade Commission) – represented Brother in asserting five patents related to print toner cartridge technology and obtaining a general exclusion order
  • Interactive Games LLC v. DraftKings Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Defendant in four-patent infringement litigation before the District Court; invalidated three patents in IPR before the PTAB
  • DISH Technologies LLC et al v. Univision Communications Inc. (D. Del.) – represented Plaintiff in asserting four patents related to media streaming technology
  • Blue Spike, LLC v. Dish Network Corporation et al (E.D. Tex & D. Del) – represented Defendant in twelve-patent infringement litigation before the District Court and PTAB
  • DISH Technologies LLC et al v. Jadoo TV, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – represented Plaintiff in asserting four patents related to media streaming technology
  • SynchView Technologies, LLC v. Channel Master, LLC (D. Del.) – represented Defendant in patent infringement litigation accusing set top box technology
  • Sonus Networks, Inc. d/b/a Ribbon Communications Operating Company v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd. et al (E.D. Tex.) – represented Plaintiff in asserting 20 patents across two litigations involving telecommunications equipment technology
  • University of Tennessee Research Foundation et al v. Teradata Operations, Inc. (E.D. Tenn.) – represented Defendant in five-patent infringement litigation involving database systems
  • IPA Technologies Inc. v. DISH Network Corporation (D. Del.) – represented Defendant in three-patent infringement litigation
  • 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
  • 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; patents invalidated at PTAB
  • 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) – represented 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 and Community

Recognized as a Washington D.C. Super Lawyer - Rising Star, 2015-2022