• vcard
D 816.572.4765
F 816.817.0452
  • Education
    • J.D., University of Kansas, 2002
    • B.A., Kansas State University, 1999, History; Men's Basketball Team Member

Jay Heidrick regularly advises clients in both transactional and litigation matters relying on his extensive experience in intellectual property, contracts, and trade secrets. He views his primary role as a problem solver who allows his clients to focus on their business instead of their legal concerns. To do this, Jay works hard to not only understand the problem at hand but also the client’s individual business and strategic goals to reach the best resolution possible for the long term benefit of his clients. While Jay aggressively seeks creative and rapid resolutions to disputes, he litigates cases with the understanding that a trial may ultimately be necessary. And in trial, Jay is a storyteller who can take complicated issues and explain them in a manner that connects with and is understood by jurors of all backgrounds.

Jay regularly handles high value, “bet the company” intellectual property cases where eight figure damages are often at stake. He understands the stress this can create for his clients and personally invests in each of his clients and cases. 

Jay is licensed to practice in all state and federal courts in both Kansas and Missouri. He is also admitted in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, as well as numerous appellate jurisdictions. He has represented clients in numerous jurisdictions at both the state and federal level across the country.

  • PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates, Inc., Eastern District of Texas: Lead trial attorney on defense of patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Texas where plaintiff demanded in excess of $15 million. The jury returned a finding of no infringement and also invalidated the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is believed this is the first case where a jury invalidated a patent under section 101 since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Berkheimer
  • Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. v. Plano Encryption Technologies, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals: Litigated and argued successful appeal for banking software provider, wherein the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals clarified law to allow demand letters sent by non-practicing entities to be a basis for personal jurisdiction and venue. This decision changed the legal landscape and allows targets of non-practicing entities to file declaratory judgment actions in venues where the non-practicing entity has conducted business by sending demand letters.
  • Vehicle IP v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. Obtained defense jury verdict for client in patent infringement matter. Plaintiff accused client’s system of calculating fuel tax of infringing its patent. We obtained a defense jury verdict of non-infringement after a two week trial in the District of Delaware.
  • DataTreasury Corporation v. Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.,: Patent Trial and Appeal Board: Represented a financial service provider in three separate actions accusing our client’s check processing software and processes of infringement. Polsinelli was successful in getting the PTAB to grant a CBMR petition, and eventually invalided all claims asserted against the client. The Federal Court agreed, resulting in a complete win for the client. Before losing its patent in our lawsuit, Plaintiff had previously received over $300 million in settlements and verdicts from suing other defendants.
  • Lead attorney for a telecommunications company and invalidated call waiting / caller ID patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The asserted claims dealt with transmitting a call-waiting tone without transmitting the caller-ID information. Polsinelli analogized this to an assistant knocking on the door and telling someone on the phone that there was another call; the judge agreed and the case was dismissed on summary judgment. The matter was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
  • Obtained summary judgment for client in trademark matter where plaintiff alleged violation of Lanham Act as well as common law state claims.
  • Advised clients in negotiating contracts on a variety of different topics including: terms and conditions for the sale of wireless handsets; collegiate football head coach; business related to internet memberships and collegiate fan sites; intellectual property licenses.
Related News