Jeffrey D. Dyess

Listed in Benchmark Litigation, "Future Star," Alabama, 2014-2016, 2018-2021, 2023-2024 Listed in The Best Lawyers in America® Commercial Litigation, 2015-2022, 2024 Antitrust Law, 2020-2024 Litigation – Intellectual Property, 2021-2024 Litigation – Patent, 2021, 2024 Litigation – Patent, and Trade Secrets Law, 2022-2024 "Lawyer of the Year," Birmingham, Antitrust Law, 2021, 2024 "Lawyer of the Year," Birmingham, Litigation – Intellectual Property, 2022 Listed in Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America, IP and Patent Litigation, 2022, 2024 Listed in Mid-South Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation, 2018-2023 T.S.B. & Co., et al., v. Artisan Home, LLC, et al. (U.S. Middle Dist. of California) Represents wall décor suppliers and national retail store customers in copyright infringement action against claims filed by artist copyright holders and licensing agency for alleged infringement of copyrights and breaches of licensing agreements for the artists’ works. ShenZhen JingPinCheng Elec. Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Blisslights, LLC (U.S. Southern Dist. of California) Represented laser lighting products seller and patent-holder Blisslights in patent infringement declaratory judgment litigation filed against it by foreign competitor involving Amazon dispute takedown actions. Rotor Blade LLC v. Signature Utility Services LLC, et al. (U.S. Northern Dist. of Alabama) Represented start-up aerial vegetation management company and its principals in patent and federal/state trade secret litigation brought by national aerial vegetation management competitor and patent holder and former employer of the individual defendants over use of aerial saw technology. Hunter Fan Company v. Landmark Technology A, LLC (U.S. Western Dist. of Tennessee) Filed declaratory judgment action for patent non-infringement and patent invalidity on behalf of Hunter Fan Company against non-practicing entity Landmark. The subject matter of the patents in suit were business methods for data processing systems, and Landmark had demanded Hunter Fan pay license fees arising from its online ordering platform. Knix Wear, Inc. v. Landmark Technology A, LLC (U.S. Middle Dist. of North Carolina) Filed declaratory judgment action for patent non-infringement and patent invalidity on behalf of Canadian active intimates company Knix Wear, Inc. against non-practicing entity Landmark. The subject matter of the patents in suit were business methods for data processing systems, and Landmark had demanded Knix Wear pay license fees arising from its online ordering platform. Southern Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. v. Landmark Tech. A, LLC (U.S. Southern Dist. of Mississippi) Filed declaratory judgment action for patent non-infringement and patent invalidity on behalf of regional pipe, plumbing, and HVAC-supply distributor against non-practicing entity Landmark. The subject matter of the patents in suit were business methods for data processing systems, and Landmark had demanded Southern Pipe & Supply Company pay license fees arising from its online ordering platform. Blevins, Inc. v. Landmark Technology A, LLC (U.S. Middle Dist. of Tennessee) Filed declaratory judgment action for patent non-infringement and patent invalidity on behalf of national manufactured housing buildings supply distributor against non-practicing entity Landmark. The subject matter of the patents in suit were business methods for data processing systems, and Landmark had demanded Blevins, Inc. pay license fees arising from its online ordering platform. TQ Delta LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc. (S. District of Delaware) Represented a leading global provider of networking and communications equipment in patent infringement litigation involving multi-carrier signal transmission technology. MiMedx Group, Inc. v. Nutech Medical, Inc., et al. (U.S. Northern District of Alabama) Represented DCI Donor Services, a tissue graft manufacturer, in patent infringement litigation pending in the Northern District of Alabama. The lawsuit involves multiple patents pertaining to the processing and composition of placental tissue grafts used in a variety of applications, including wound care. Steyr Arms, Inc. v. Beretta USA Corp. (U.S. Northern District of Alabama) Represented firearms manufacturer Beretta USA Corp. in patent infringement litigation involving handgun technology filed against it by competitor Steyr Arms, Inc. in the Northern District of Alabama. Lifetime Products, Inc. v. Russell Brands, LLC(U.S. District of Utah and U.S. International Trade Commission)  Represented Russell Brands, LLC, an international sporting goods and athletic wear manufacturer, and its international supplier. Russell Brands was sued by Lifetime Products, its competitor in the residential basketball backboard systems market, on grounds of patent infringement. Russell counterclaimed, seeking a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity, as well as unenforceability on numerous grounds of inequitable conduct on the part of Lifetime in procuring the patents-in-suit. The litigation also produced extensive related administrative reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. My Health, Inc. v. GenerationOne, Inc., (U.S. Eastern District of Tex.) Represented GenOne, a preeminent mobile health technology service provider delivering next-generation cost containment for the healthcare industry using mobile solutions for driving collaborative care and care management. Defended GenOne against claims of patent infringement that accused GenOne’s mobile collaborative care technology products. Wolf Run Hollow, LLC v. Online Resources Corp.(U.S. Central District of California) Represented Online Resources Corporation, one of the nation’s largest processors of bank and credit card payment transactions in this patent infringement action. Defended Online Resources against claims of patent infringement brought by non-practicing entity Wolf Run Hollow. The subject matter of the patents in suit were business methods and systems for transmitting secure messages across insecure networks. Online Resources Corp. v. Autoscribe Corp., et al.(U.S. District of Maryland) Represents Online Resources Corporation, one of the nation's largest processors of bank and credit card payment transactions, in this patent infringement action. The subject matter of the patents was business methods and systems for processing bill payments taken over the phone. The firm filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court in Maryland seeking a declaration that it did not infringe claims of a family of patents held by defendants or, alternatively, that these patents were invalid, and the defendants filed counterclaim alleging infringement.  Stambler v. Intuit, Inc., et al. (U.S. Eastern District of Texas)  Represented a main defendant against patent infringement claims that the technology and methods used by defendants to process a variety of financial transactions infringed patents owned by the plaintiff. Wisconsin Emer. Technicians Ass’n v. EMS-PRO, LLC(U.S. Eastern District Wisc.)  Defended publishing company against claims that one of its publications, distributed in the field of first responders, violated the trademarks of a Wisconsin-based EMT association. Defense included successfully fending off motions for emergency and preliminary injunctions prior to negotiating favorable settlement of claims. William E. Poole Designs, Inc. v. Southern Living, Inc. (U.S. Northern District of Ala.)  Defended Southern Living against alleged copyright infringement of numerous house plans and artists renderings, in which plaintiff home designer’s damages claim exceeded $100 million. We also asserted counterclaims for trademark infringement arising from the plaintiff’s use of the Southern Living trademark in internet keyword advertising, sponsored ads, and as website metatags.