Jamie McDole is a Shareholder in the Dallas office of Winstead. He is a seasoned first-chair trial attorney who has represented Fortune 50 companies, as plaintiffs and defendants, in federal court and before the International Trade Commission.
He understands the needs of his clients and provides them with clear counsel and advice designed to monetize their IP assets. His devotion to understanding the issues and a client goals, and his strategic vision has led to consistent success in both litigation and licensing.
He has a proven track record of delivering for clients on a wide range of technology-oriented cases including: 3G, LTE, and 4G standard essential patents, data storage, semiconductors, mobile devices, evaporative coolers, smart electricity meters, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, manufacturing processes, electronic check presentment, and biologics.
Winstead’s unique and nimble model reduces client conflicts and affords Jamie, and his team, the opportunity to develop innovative fee arrangements, making him a true partner with his clients.
Jamie is a devoted husband, and father to three children. He takes great pride and joy in spending his available free time with his family.
With venue for patent infringement actions under § 1400(b) narrowed after TC Heartland and In re Cray, patent owners could use declaratory judgment (DJ) actions to secure their desired venue because venue in DJ actions is governed by § 1391. The Declaratory Judgment Act provides federal courts with the authority to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party” where an “actual controversy” exists. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02… The ITC offers patent owners yet another venue option outside of § 1400(b).
Some analysts have concluded that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland will make it more difficult for patent owners to enforce their patents. Generally, they assert that patent infringement litigation will become more costly for patent owners because they may have to assert their rights in multiple jurisdictions throughout the country. They also contend that concurrent litigation in multiple courts will lead to inconsistent outcomes. One response to these concerns is multidistrict litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Congress authorized the formation of a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer “civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact” to a single “district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has authority to transfer patent cases as it does any other “civil actions.” Indeed, Congress predicted that patent cases would be particularly appropriate for multidistrict litigation.