Jesse J. Camacho

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Jesse worked exclusively in Shook, Hardy & Bacon’s Intellectual Property section for almost 20 years with his focus being on patent law. In the early part of his career, Jesse helped companies develop their patent portfolios (preparing or overseeing the drafting of hundreds of patent applications). He then transitioned to litigation and post-grant proceedings full time.

Jesse’s areas of expertise include:

Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Litigation and Prosecution, Inter Partes Review (IPRs) Proceedings, Ex Parte Reexamination (EPRs) Proceedings, Covered Business Method (CBM), Review Proceedings, Post Grant Reviews, Intellectual Property Client Counseling, cryptocurrency technology, blockchain technology, NFT’s (non-fungible tokens), DAOs (distributed autonomous organizations), Web3.0, DeFi (distributed finance), and metaverse issues.

REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS

Authentication/Notification (including two-factor or multifactor authentication):

Twilio v. TeleSign, U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. Patent 7,945,034 B2 (“Assertions of obviousness levied in connection with a patented process for detecting fraudulent conduct based upon a user’s telephone number rejected by the Board”).

TeleSign v. Twilio, Central District of California, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,945,034 (“Process for determining characteristics of a telephone number”); and 8,462,920; 8,687,038; and 9,300,792 (“Registration, verification and notification system”) (also defend against three IPRs).

StrikeForce v. PhoneFactor and StrikeForce v. Microsoft, District of Delaware, U.S. Patent Nos.: 7,870,599; 8,484,698; and 8,713,701 (“Multichannel device utilizing a centralized out-of-band authentication system (COBAS)”).

SimpleAir v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Texas, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,035,914 and 6,021,433 (“System and method for transmission of data”).

Cryptography/Encoding/Security:

Princeton Digital v. Microsoft, District of Delaware, U.S. Patent No. 4,813,056 (“Modified statistical coding of digital signals”)
Tallgrass v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Texas, Addison Fischer Patent Nos. 5,346,972; 6,141,423; 6,216,229 (“Method for preventing inadvertent betrayal by a trustee of escrowed digital secrets”).

Pantaurus v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Texas, U.S. Patent No. 6,272,533 (“Secure computer system and method of providing secure access to a computer system including a stand alone switch operable to inhibit data corruption on a storage device”).

Communications/Email/Imaging:

Comcast v. Sprint, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, U.S. Patent No. 5,991,271 (“Signal-to-channel mapping for multi-channel, multi-signal transmission systems”).

InNova v. Cinemark, Eastern District of Texas, U.S. Patent No. 6,018,761 (“System for adding to electronic mail messages information obtained from sources external to the electronic mail transport process”).

E-contact v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Texas, U.S. Patent No. 5,347,579 (“Personal computer diary”).

Skyline v. Microsoft, Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. Patent No. 7,551,172 (“Sending three-dimensional images over a network”).

Chemical:

Buckman v. Solenis, Western District of Tennessee, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,841,469 (“Chemical additives and use thereof in stillage processing operations”) and 8,962,059 (“Bio-based oil composition and method for producing the same”).

Buckman v. Nalco, Northern District of Illinois, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,949,432; 8,012,758; and 7,981,679 (“Method of monitoring microbiological activity in process streams”).

Trademark Proceedings

Represented fashion company, defending against trademark-cancellation claims.

Represented non-profit, pursuing trademark-opposition claims.

WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID

“Jesse is an extraordinarily thorough lawyer with great attention to detail and a passion for patent law. Jesse’s technical abilities are second to none. He consistently demonstrates a command of all aspects of a case and leverages his skills as a patent prosecutor to great effect in litigation. Jesse has a preternatural ability to assimilate vast amounts of complex information and to create a relatable narrative for a jury.” – Andy Cooper, Associate General Counsel at Meta

“Jesse was the partner at SHB who managed a fairly complex and lengthy IP litigation matter for me when I was the CFO of TeleSign. Litigation on either side is not something I enjoy, but I could not be more pleased with how Jesse managed our case / process. He has substantial expertise and experience, but also has the ability to reduce the issues into consumable information for executives / board members. He was creative and able to discuss and provide sound options at every step of the litigation. He is a consummate professional and I appreciated his civility even when opposing counsel made it difficult to be civil. I would not hesitate to use Jesse again and happy to recommend him to others.” – Matt Hardy, then CFO at TeleSign Inc.

“What is most admirable about Jesse is his interest in developing the next generation of attorneys. Jesse has a knack for working and studying intentionally and breaking down into bite-size pieces information that would not otherwise be easily digestible. He gives his full attention to what he is engaged with, whether it be a case he is working on or his role as substitute teacher at his children’s school. These are the skills he teaches the next generation of legal talent.” – Lischen Reeves, Corporate Counsel at Cerner Corporation (now Oracle)

“During my career as an in-house patent counsel, having a trusted relationship with outside counsel was essential. For over 15 years, I worked with Jesse on various patent prosecution and patent litigation matters. Jesse’s legal advice is top-notch and his case management skills are excellent. He provides high quality and timely legal services at a reasonable cost.” – Steve Funk (retired), formerly IP Counsel at Sprint (now T-Mobile)