• vcard
214.661.5519 (Dallas) 713.374.1671 (Houston)
  • Education
    • J.D., University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law, 2003
    • B.S., University of Nebraska, 2000, Biochemistry
  • Bar Jurisdictions
    • Texas
    • Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
  • Court Admissions
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
    • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
    • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
    • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
    • U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
Every matter is unique and requires a tailored strategy aligned with the case-specific business objectives. With this in mind, Jason works with clients to strategically defend, enforce and monetize their intellectual property, with an emphasis on representing plaintiffs and defendants in complex intellectual property disputes. Jason has represented a broad range of clients in patent litigation across the country through case strategy and evaluation, Markman proceedings, trial, and appeal. He has experience involving a wide range technologies including:
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Software applications
  • Hardware devices
  • Business methods
  • Cellular and computer networks
  • GPS systems and devices
  • RFID systems and devices
  • Oil field and downhole tools
  • Animal health products
  • Chemical compounds
  • Microarrays
Jason also serves clients by providing counseling and litigation related to:
  • Confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements
  • Noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements
  • Design patents
  • Inventorship disputes
  • Trademark infringement and protection
  • Copyright infringement and protection
  • Intellectual property ownership
  • Licensing issues
  • Unfair competition
  • Trade secrets and misappropriation
  • Privacy concerns
  • Internet strategy
  • IP asset and portfolio analysis
  • Life sciences
Jason is active in the regional startup community, serving as a mentor at the Dallas Entrepreneur Center and Addison TreeHouse. He works with entrepreneurs, startup companies and their investors to evaluate and protect valuable intellectual property, assess risk, and identify barriers to entry.

Prior to law school, Jason worked as a Research Assistant in the University of Nebraska Biological Process Development Facility, a leading research center in the field of biopharmaceuticals. His work focused on developing and manufacturing vaccines and bio therapeutics derived from recombinant proteins, including vaccines for biological warfare agents.
  • Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. v. Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC, et al. Representation of generic pharmaceutical manufacturer in Paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman litigation. (District of Delaware)
  • ProStrakan, Inc., et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., et al. Representation of generic pharmaceutical manufacturer in Paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman litigation. (Eastern District of Texas)
  • Vapor Point, LLC, et al. v. Elliott Moorhead, et al. Representation of plaintiffs in inventorship and infringement dispute relating to degassing technology. (Southern District of Texas)
  • OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. v. FreightWatch International (USA), Inc. Representation of defendant in patent infringement lawsuit relating to RFID technology. (Northern District of Texas)
  • Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C., et al. v. Alliance Data Systems Corp., et al. Representation of defendants in patent infringement action relating to software utilized in the provision of financial services. (Eastern District of Texas) 
  • Secure Axcess, LLC v. Bank of America Corp., et al. Representation of banking entities in patent infringement litigation relating to online banking software. (Eastern District of Texas)
  • Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC v. Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., et al. Representation of defendants in patent infringement litigation relating to software used in connection with online news publications. (Central District of California)
  • Syntrix Biosystems, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc. Representation of plaintiff in patent infringement litigation relating to microarray technology. (Western District of Washington) 
  • AutoStar Solutions, Inc. v. Auto Master Systems, Inc. Representation of plaintiff in copyright infringement matter relating to software utilized to facilitate transactions between automotive finance companies and automobile purchasers. (Northern District of Texas/Northern District of Indiana)
  • Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. d/b/a Advanced Pharmacy v. Provider Meds, LP, et al. Representation of plaintiff in patent infringement litigation relating to software and systems for facilitating the provision of medication in hospitals and other care facilities. (Eastern District of Texas) 
  • Merial Limited, et al. v. Virbac SA, et al. Representation of defendants in patent infringement litigation involving a patent relating to leading flea preventative for dogs and cats. (Northern District of Texas) 
  • Classic Ink, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Rowdies, et al. Representation of defendants in trademark infringement matter concerning mark for use in connection with minor league soccer team. (Northern District of Texas) 
  • FPS Investments, LLC v. Azteca Milling, L.P., et al. Representation of plaintiff in patent infringement litigation relating to a large-scale industrial fall-protection system. (Eastern District of Missouri)
  • Minka Lighting v. Maxim Lighting International, Inc., et al. Representation of defendants in design patent infringement litigation relating to designs for outdoor lighting fixtures. (Northern District of Texas) 
  • Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services, Inc. USA, et al. Representation in misappropriation of trade secrets and patent ownership dispute relating to a pioneering horizontal drilling and fracking application. (238th District Court, Midland County, Texas)
text icon Publications & Presentations
Inventorship: Who is the Inventor, Why It Matters, and What Happens When You Don't Get it Right
Dallas Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Section
December 2014
text icon Publications & Presentations
A Snapshot of the New USPTO Dallas Office
Law360
December 2012
text icon Publications & Presentations
Wietjes Socially Inept? Protecting Intellectual Property and Privacy Rights in the Realm of Social Media
Texas Advanced Paralegal Seminar
October 2012
text icon Publications & Presentations
Wietjes Can't Touch This - Supreme Court Finds Personalized Medicine Patent Claims Invalid
Intellectual Property Today
March 22, 2012
text icon Publications & Presentations
Wietjes Ariad v Eli Lilly: Federal Circuit Confirms Separate Written Description and Enablement Requirements for Patents
Mondaq Business Briefing
March 29, 2010
text icon Publications & Presentations
Wietjes An Introduction to Intellectual Property
North Texas Paralegal Association
March 2010
text icon Publications & Presentations
Wietjes Director and Officer Liability for Inducement of Patent Infringement
ABA Intellectual Property Litigation Journal, 21 Intell. Prop. Lit. 3
Winter 2010
text icon Publications & Presentations
Wietjes Virtualization of Computing Technology Can Save Time and Money
Texas Lawyer
June 16, 2008
Related News