Source: https://www.shb.com/professionals/c/camacho-jesse
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 21:05:24+00:00

Document:
A registered patent attorney since 2002, Jesse helps resolve intellectual property disputes. He represents clients in federal courts and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in post-grant proceedings. The majority of Jesse’s practice is dedicated to helping clients navigate patent litigation and inter partes review proceedings—including enforcing patents and defending against claims of patent infringement. Although he enjoys the technical aspects of each case, his prior work experience and MBA help keep him stay focused on architecting business solutions based on his client’s goals.
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”).
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”).
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”).
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”).
The Domain of Blockchain, co-presented with Keith Bae, Secret Sauce IP BBQ CLE, Kansas City, Kansas (September 2018).
Using Technology to Increase Your Efficiency, Annual Update on the Law (June 2016).
Baccalaureate Address, Law School of University of Missouri at Kansas City (May 2016).
IP for Engineers, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (April 2010).
What IP Means to You, University of Missouri – Columbia (March 2010).
Top-10 Claim-Drafting Tips, Post Bilski & In General, LAKC 2nd Annual IP CLE (December 2009).
What ‘CIA Agents’ and ‘Generalists Dealing with IP Issues’ Have in Common, Mid-America Chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel (October 2009).
Revisiting Accelerated Examination, SHB, co-presented with Kelly Feimster (September 2009).
Top 10 Federal Circuit Decisions of 2008 (presented on two cases: Impax Labs & DDB Technologies), Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association (April 2009).
Everything You Wanted to Know About IP In About an Hour, Professor for a Day at University of Missouri - Columbia (Annual presentation).
You Have the Right to Remain Silent. Anything You Write In Your Patent Application Can, and Will, Be Used Against You, Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association (March 2005).
Internal presentations on patentable subject matter, opinions, claiming strategies, drafting pitfalls, written-description issues, overcoming obviousness rejections, patent profanity, and more.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.