Nicholas Jackson is a partner at Dentons.
Nick helps US and foreign high technology companies and manufacturers protect their market, their business and their intellectual property. As a mechanical engineer and registered patent attorney, Nick focuses on intellectual property litigation at the US International Trade Commission (ITC). With experience handling more than a dozen cases before the ITC on behalf of both complainants and respondents, in both patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation investigations, clients turn to Nick to successfully navigate the intricacies of the ITC to quickly and efficiently resolve their disputes. From early-stage startups and individuals to Fortune Global 500 companies, Nick has assisted clients in utilizing the ITC to protect their domestic manufacturing and industry. Nick has also defended major foreign manufacturers in the ITC to ensure no interruptions in their ability to access the US market with their products.
In addition to the ITC, Nick also practices before US federal courts at the trial and appellate levels, including experience arguing appeals before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As a member of Dentons’ Intellectual Property and Technology practice, Nick’s extensive experience enforcing patent rights and defending patent infringement claims encompasses a wide variety of technologies, including medical devices, wearable technology, consumer products, cellular telephones, consumer appliances, cloud computing, naval architecture, semiconductor manufacturing, optical imaging devices, photovoltaics, surgical equipment and implants, medical devices and automotive design. He has also managed companies’ patent portfolios of over 500 pending applications in the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and before its Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Nick has a BS in mechanical engineering and, prior to entering the legal profession, managed customer-side quality control as a quality assurance engineer for Denso Manufacturing, a tier-one automotive part manufacturer.
The central issue before the Federal Circuit was whether there was a genuine issue of material fact that TSA’s performance of those steps could be attributed to Travel Sentry, such that Travel Sentry could be held singularly responsible for directly infringing Tropp’s method claims. Slip Op. at 13. The district court had answered this question in the negative… The Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s interpretation of divided infringement as too narrow and, accordingly, vacated its summary judgment of non-infringement.