Jamie Underwood "knows what the trends are at the commission and how these affect business interests; as a result, the wins she scores always correlate with the long-term plans of her clients. She also thinks internationally when it comes to IP strategy and, as testament to this, has proven to be highly effective at bringing about global resolutions in battles that are fought inside as well as outside the ITC."IAM Patent 1000 2018

Jamie D. Underwood

Washington, D.C.
  • 555 Eleventh Street, NW
  • Suite 1000
  • Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
  • USA
 
 

Jamie D. Underwood is a partner and global IP strategist in Latham & Watkins’ Intellectual Property Litigation and International Trade Commission (ITC) Practices. Ms. Underwood uses her first chair experience to help complainants, respondents, and third parties to resolve investigations before the ITC and related matters before US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She has advocated for clients in more than 50 Section 337 actions involving a wide range of products and industries, and has also served as an expert in ITC-related arbitration. In addition, Ms. Underwood advises entities on legislative and policy issues before Congress, federal agencies, and the Administration. Her professional activities in the Section 337 arena have garnered rankings by Chambers, IAM Patent 1000, and Managing Intellectual Property. She is also a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and serves on the firm’s Women Enriching Business Committee.

Aside from her involvement in Section 337, Ms. Underwood has litigation experience in federal trial and appellate courts, where she has handled disputes involving trademarks, trade secrets, patents, copyrights, antitrust, and complex commercial questions. She also has provided pro bono representation in political asylum, employment discrimination, and appellate procedure suits before the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, the US District Court for the District of Columbia, and the United States Supreme Court.

Prior to joining Latham, Ms. Underwood was head of a multinational law firm’s Section 337 group, and before joining private practice, was law clerk to Judge Frank Q. Nebeker, Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as well as Judge Truman A. Morrison, III of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. During law school, Ms. Underwood gained significant exposure to thought leaders in international law through an internship with the Hungarian Parliament, consultation for the War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and a Dean’s Fellowship supporting a book on the constitutional courts of Central and Eastern Europe. She also prosecuted domestic violence cases at the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. as part of one of the top trial clinics in the country.

Thought Leadership

To complement her casework, Ms. Underwood keeps stakeholders abreast of leading-edge ITC developments through her avid involvement in the ITC and IP communities. Most notably, she currently serves as the President Elect for the Federal Circuit Bar Association. Ms. Underwood has lectured on ITC practice at Georgetown University Law Center, the University of Baltimore School of Law, and Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America. She also speaks and writes regularly on the topics of Section 337, intellectual property, litigation, and international trade. Her contributions are reflected in the book A Lawyer’s Guide to Section 337 Investigations Before the US International Trade Commission. For the last several years, she has participated on the global trade stage as an NGO delegate to multiple World Trade Organization Ministerial Conferences.

Ms. Underwood’s representative experience includes:
  • Hybrid Electric Vehicles & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1042. Defending automotive company in high-stakes action involving products key to US environmental goals. Forced complainant to drop one full patent and many other claims from remaining patents. Prevented summary determination orders. Provided counsel on novel procedural/policy issues.*
  • Hybrid Electric Vehicles & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-998. Counseled third party automotive client on policy ramifications of remedy sought by complainant. Drafted public interest comments addressing same.*
  • Carbon & Alloy Steel Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1002. Secured no violation on unique claims with implications for US trade policy. False designation of origin claim was dismissed on summary determination. Antitrust claim, which has not been pled for decades, was dismissed. Included rare public interest hearing at the Commission level.*
  • Nokia Public Policy Initiative. Spearheaded advocacy on the Hill and before the Administration involving IP reforms. Led discussions on front-line patent and ITC issues. Shaped content and interpretation of existing and proposed laws.*
  • Hand Dryers & Housings for Hand Dryers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1015. Delivered a cost-effective solution for client via consent order. Implemented prudent resolution to satisfy business objectives.*
  • Radiotherapy Systems & Treatment Planning Software & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-968. Negotiated withdrawal of emergency trial subpoena. Evaluated potential enforcement issues. Met strategic goals of client without motions practice.*
  • Confidential Expert Engagement. Hired and accepted as Section 337 expert in legal malpractice arbitration to opine on standard of care at the ITC. Arbitrator found in favor of client, based in part on expert report and testimony provided.*
  • Audio Processing Hardware & Software & Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-949. Litigated second ITC 100-day program matter. Drove termination of investigation based on complainant’s withdrawal of the complaint against client – a top computer manufacturer.*
  • Electric Paper Towel Dispensing Devices & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-718. Liaised with Customs and ports to enforce a general exclusion order and cease and desist orders against domestic and foreign respondents on behalf of complainant – one of the largest manufacturers/distributors of paper goods.*
  • Set-Top Boxes & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-712. Defeated infringement claims for all five patents at issue for respondent – a well-known cable television company.*
  • Printing & Imaging Devices & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-690. Procured a no violation result on all five patents at issue for respondents – global manufacturer/sellers of printers and related equipment.*
  • Noise Cancelling Headphones, Inv. No. 337-TA-626. Achieved a favorable settlement prior to trial for a prominent consumer electronics respondent.*
  • L-Lysine Feed Products, Their Methods of Production & Genetic Constructs For Production, Inv. No. 337-TA-571. Protected respondents’ interests in a case where the Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of patents at issue and upheld a no violation finding by the ALJ and the Commission.*
  • Baseband Processor Chips & Chipsets, Transmitter & Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, & Products Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephone Handsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-543. Intervened for third party producer before the Federal Circuit in what became Kyocera Wireless Corporation v. ITC, Appeal Nos. 2007-1493 et seq. Overturned limited exclusion order for entities not named as respondents.*
  • Ink Markers & Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-522. Won general exclusion order and a cease and desist order for complainant – a renowned writing products manufacturer. Violation found on summary determination based on infringement of trademarks and trade dress.*
*Matter handled prior to joining Latham
 
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.