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.