Jameson Reece Jones
Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, 2009-Present, Partner (since 2013)
United States Supreme Court Briefing and Argument
Lexmark International v. Static Control Components (No. 12-873)
Briefed, argued, and obtained a unanimous favorable decision before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Static Control Components, Inc. The district court had held that Static Control lacked standing, as a prudential matter, to sue Lexmark for false advertising under the Lanham Act. The Sixth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Jameson crafted the winning strategy to frame Static Control’s position in relation to first principles, rather than any of the regional circuits’ tests. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Static Control adequately pleaded a viable false advertising claim against Lexmark, adopted Static Control’s suggested zone-of-interests approach, and clarified the law with regard to standing and proximate cause for all federal statutes. The opinion is here. The opinion, argument, and advocacy were featured in Bloomberg BNA (Court Struggles With Question of Who Should Have Standing Under Landham Act), the American Lawyer (Supreme Court Rookie Scores with Lexmark Ruling), and the National Law Journal (Court Opens Lanham Claims to Non-Direct Competitors).
Liverpool Football Club Litigation (England)
Represents American investor George Gillett, and related entities including Kop Investment LLC, in litigation arising out of the sale of the Liverpool Football Club, one of the most valuable sports franchises in the world.
Santa Clara County et al. v. NL Industries (District Court for Santa Clara County, California)
Represents NL industries in a public nuisance action related to lead paint, brought on behalf of a number of California municipalities. Case has been tried and a judgment rendered against NL. The case will be appealed.
Imprelis® Litigation (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
National counsel for DuPont in product liability litigation, including putative class actions pending in an MDL in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging damage caused by DuPont's Imprelis® herbicide.
Meins v. Bayer, et al. (Arkansas Circuit Court, Arkansas County)
Represented Bayer in a case against Riceland Foods, Inc. in a four week trial concerning the presence of genetically modified rice in the U.S. long-grain rice supply.
Briggs v. Bayer CropScience LP (Arkansas District Court, Jefferson County)
Represented Bayer in case brought by large Jefferson County rice farmer. Plaintiffs’ counsel engaged in improper publicity on eve of jury selection and trial team obtained continuance three days before trial.
Sims, et al v. Bayer CropScience LP, et al. (Arkansas Circuit Court, Desha County)
Represented Bayer in case brought by six Desha County rice farmers. Jury awarded $946,000, only 7% of plaintiffs' $14,000,000 in requested damages and just $70,000 more than Defendants' expert testimony regarding damages. Jury unanimously rejected punitive damages.
In re: Genetically Modified Rice Litigation - MDL Bellwether Trial (E.D. Missouri)
Represented Bayer for second MDL bellwether trial in St. Louis. Two Missouri rice farmers prevailed, but jury awarded less than requested and no punitive damages.
GEA v. Bechtel Power (Federal District Court, District of Colorado)
Represented Bechtel in dispute with subcontractor over subcontractor's performance during construction of power plant in Athens, New York. Case settled.