 OverviewJamil focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation, intellectual property disputes, insolvency litigation, noncompetition and trade secret litigation, and appellate matters, serving clients throughout Texas and the rest of the country. He has expertise across various industries, including energy, financial services, health care, real estate and technology and telecommunications. Jamil currently serves as leader of Munsch Hardt’s Intellectual Property practice group. Jamil takes on challenging cases that result in remarkable wins for his clients. Throughout his more than 25 year legal career, he has served as lead trial counsel in cases involving some of the largest businesses in America in state and federal courts nationwide. Notably, he served as lead counsel for Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (ERCOT) in connection with multiple disputes following Texas’s historic Winter Storm Uri, one of which was considered to be the largest bankruptcy trial in the country in 2022 and led to a recovery of over $1.9 B for ERCOT. He was also lead trial and appellate counsel in the adversary proceeding filed against ERCOT by the largest independent retail energy provider in the State of Texas for $335 MM, which led to an appellate victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 2015, Jamil was honored as one of National Law Journal’s winning litigators for his work on a patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation case that was tried to a jury. Jamil was lead counsel on the case that resulted in an $88 MM verdict, which was ranked the 16th Largest Verdict of 2015 by The National Law Journal and VerdictSearch. Memberships
- American Bar Association
- American Intellectual Property Law Association
- Dallas Bar Association
- Federal Circuit Bar Association
- Honorable Patrick E. Higginbotham American Inn of Court (Master of the Bench)
- Make-A-Wish North Texas (Board Member, 2017-present)
OverviewJamil focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation, intellectual property disputes, insolvency litigation, noncompetition and trade secret litigation, and appellate matters, serving clients throughout Texas and the rest of the country. He has expertise across various industries, including energy, financial services, health care, real estate and technology and telecommunications. Jamil currently serves as leader of Munsch Hardt’s Intellectual Property practice group. Jamil takes on challenging cases that result in remarkable wins for his clients. Throughout his more than 25 year legal career, he has served as lead trial counsel in cases involving some of the largest businesses in America in state and federal courts nationwide. Notably, he served as lead counsel for Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (ERCOT) in connection with multiple disputes following Texas’s historic Winter Storm Uri, one of which was considered to be the largest bankruptcy trial in the country in 2022 and led to a recovery of over $1.9 B for ERCOT. He was also lead trial and appellate counsel in the adversary proceeding filed against ERCOT by the largest independent retail energy provider in the State of Texas for $335 MM, which led to an appellate victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 2015, Jamil was honored as one of National Law Journal’s winning litigators for his work on a patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation case that was tried to a jury. Jamil was lead counsel on the case that resulted in an $88 MM verdict, which was ranked the 16th Largest Verdict of 2015 by The National Law Journal and VerdictSearch. ExperienceBankruptcy Litigation + Appellate VictoryRepresented Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (“ERCOT”) in defending an adversary proceeding brought in the U.S. [more]Represented Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (“ERCOT”) in defending an adversary proceeding brought in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas by Anna Phillips, as Trustee of the Entrust Liquidating Trust (“Entrust”). Entrust sought to avoid $296 MM it owed for outstanding invoices for energy purchased during Winter Storm Uri. ERCOT moved to dismiss Entrust’s claims and requested that the bankruptcy court abstain under the Burford doctrine. After the Bankruptcy Court declined to abstain and denied ERCOT’s motion to dismiss most of the claims, ERCOT appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After hearing oral argument, the Fifth Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Court’s refusal to abstain under Burford was error, four of the counts should be dismissed, and the remaining two counts should be stayed. [less]Trial Victory + IPDefended North America’s largest specialty provider of arts and crafts in a federal district court jury trial involving allegations of breach [more]Defended North America’s largest specialty provider of arts and crafts in a federal district court jury trial involving allegations of breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and trademark infringement where the Plaintiff sought a share of profits up to $9 MM. The Munsch Hardt team was hired two months prior to trial and obtained a full defense verdict finding our client did not infringe the Plaintiff’s trademark related to paint-by-number kits. [less]Bankruptcy LitigationLead counsel for Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (“ERCOT”) in defending an adversary proceeding brought in the U.S. [more]Lead counsel for Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (“ERCOT”) in defending an adversary proceeding brought in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas by Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (“Brazos”). Brazos sought to avoid approximately $1.9 B it owed for energy charges incurred during Texas’ historic Winter Storm Uri. The trial began February 21, 2022 and proceeded for two weeks before the parties agreed to submit to mediation. In November 2022, the bankruptcy court approved a Chapter 11 plan for Brazos. This proceeding was considered to be the largest bankruptcy trial in the country in 2022. [less]Commercial Litigation & AppealRepresented a gold-mining company in a decade-long dispute. The district court refused to recognize a $48 MM judgement [more]Represented a gold-mining company in a decade-long dispute. The district court refused to recognize a $48 MM judgement from Mexico and instead found the judgement (i) is repugnant to the public policy of the State of Texas and the United States; (ii) conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment, and (iii) was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law. The losing party appealed, and Munsch Hardt served as lead counsel on the appeal to the Fifth Court of Appeals, where the appeal was dismissed. [less]Patent InfringementRepresented an international pharmaceutical company in patent infringement cases against generic drug manufacturers. Bankruptcy Litigation Represented Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (“ERCOT”) in connection to the Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding [more]Represented Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (“ERCOT”) in connection to the Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding commenced by Just Energy Group, Inc. (“Just Energy”) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Just Energy, the largest independent retail energy provider in the State of Texas, was invoiced more than $280 MM by ERCOT following Winter Storm Uri. Just Energy filed a complaint against ERCOT seeking to void payment for electricity purchased. ERCOT successfully moved to have certain causes of action dismissed and was granted a motion for direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Just Energy’s petitions for rehearing were denied and the adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy case is stayed. [less]Breach of Contract Represented an investment management company against a seller that was in breach of a purchase agreement for failing to properly [more]Represented an investment management company against a seller that was in breach of a purchase agreement for failing to properly construct buildings. The case included an arbitration, federal court case and state court case to resolve the issue. Munsch Hardt was involved in finalizing the termination of the Purchase Agreement and negotiating another real estate transaction among the parties as a part of a settlement. [less] Patent Infringement Defending a lighting company in a patent infringement case involving six patents related to LED driver/dimmer technology. [more]Defending a lighting company in a patent infringement case involving six patents related to LED driver/dimmer technology. The Court ordered the plaintiff to reduce the number of asserted claims and inter partes reviews for the six patents are currently pending. [less] Bankruptcy Litigation Representing a sublessee against an owner/landlord after the entity who arranged the sublease filed for bankruptcy, which led to [more]Representing a sublessee against an owner/landlord after the entity who arranged the sublease filed for bankruptcy, which led to our client’s lease being rejected. Munsch Hardt exposed improprieties in the case and our client sued the owner/landlord parties for conspiracy, tortious interference, attempting wrongful eviction and seeking declaratory relief with respect to its rights under the lease and sublease. After failing to get these charges dismissed, the owner/landlord parties counterclaimed. The counterclaims were initially dismissed, but have since been amended and discovery is now ongoing. [less]Patent Infringement + Trade Secrets Defended a diabetes treatment company sued for patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. Our team filed an [more]Defended a diabetes treatment company sued for patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. Our team filed an interlocutory appeal and emergency motion to stay the district court’s injunction with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The emergency stay was granted so that patient treatment could continue and the Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof in their case, and the district court’s injunction was reversed and remanded. [less]Intellectual Property Represented a software company in the rights to a payroll tax processing software purchased in 2015. Following the purchase of [more]Represented a software company in the rights to a payroll tax processing software purchased in 2015. Following the purchase of the software, a company that previously held interest in a Transfer Agreement with our client filed a suit seeking declaration of rights to the software. Our client filed a counterclaim and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of our client and against the plaintiff on two counts of the Complaint. The case went to trial regarding the parties’ rights, and ended in a judgment in favor of our client. [less]Breach of Contract Representing a global technology company in a breach of contract case stemming from a project to provide prison inmates with access [more]Representing a global technology company in a breach of contract case stemming from a project to provide prison inmates with access to digital media for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. After our client completed installation, the defendant defaulted on $22 MM in invoices for the work our client did. The case is ongoing. [less]Breach of Fiduciary DutyRepresented plaintiffs in a lawsuit arising from investments made by our clients in a limited partnership founded and managed by [more]Represented plaintiffs in a lawsuit arising from investments made by our clients in a limited partnership founded and managed by the Defendant, who solicited investments from our clients by means of untrue statements and failed to disclose material information in connection with the solicitation of those funds. After obtaining a final judgment in our favor for more than $8 MM after a motion for summary judgment for violations of the Texas Securities Act and breach of fiduciary duty, Defendant filed a motion for new trial. The motion was denied and Defendant appealed to the Dallas Court of Appeals. On February 7, 2024, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. [less]
|
|
 |