Jason Steed

I'll research this attorney before drafting. Let me run several searches.

Let me verify his prior firms and patent-specific work.

Professional Summary: Jason P. Steed

Specialty / focus areas. Steed is, by his own firm's description and all verified sources, an appellate lawyer, not a patent litigator by trade. His practice spans complex commercial litigation, class actions, employment, qui tam/FCA, product liability, arbitration appeals, and constitutional law. The single tracked patent-side appearance in the structured data is thin, and the most prominent verified patent matter he worked on — Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies — is an IPR/PTAB-procedure dispute, not a substantive technology case. The underlying patent there involved telephony (an anonymous telephone-call system), so there is no reliable basis to attribute a technology focus (Wi-Fi standards, pharma, mechanical, etc.) to him. His patent exposure is best characterized as appellate and Supreme Court-side work on patent-administrative-law questions.

Side preference. The structured data shows 1 plaintiff-side appearance, 0 defendant-side. That is consistent with Thryv, where the firm's client Thryv/Dex Media was the IPR petitioner (i.e., the patent challenger) and the Supreme Court petitioner. A one-appearance sample cannot support a meaningful side-preference conclusion; treat this as an isolated data point rather than a practice pattern.

Firm context. Steed is Counsel in the Dallas office of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, which he joined in September 2017 as part of the firm's Appellate Practice within the Complex Commercial Litigation team. Before that he was at Bell Nunnally & Martin in Dallas (joining in 2013, elevated to partner), and earlier practiced in the Supreme Court and Appellate group of a large international firm; he also interned for Judge Paul Kelly of the Tenth Circuit. He is not an in-house attorney.

Notable cases / outcomes. Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, No. 18-916 (U.S. Apr. 20, 2020) is the headline matter. The Supreme Court held 7-2 (Ginsburg, J.) that a PTAB determination that an IPR petition was timely filed under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is final and non-appealable under § 314(d), vacating the Federal Circuit's en banc Wi-Fi One framework. Important caveat on his role: firm and press accounts identify Mitch Stockwell as handling the PTAB and Federal Circuit phases and Adam Charnes as arguing at the Supreme Court; Steed is listed among the attorneys on the Supreme Court briefing and oral-argument preparation team. He should not be described as lead or arguing counsel in that case. Elsewhere in his appellate practice, the firm cites his early-associate contribution to dismissal of a $1 billion putative class action and his participation on a team that won reversal of an $800 million jury verdict in 2017.

PTAB / IPR experience. No evidence he personally appears before the PTAB; the Thryv PTAB work was handled by another lawyer in the firm. His IPR-related experience appears limited to appellate and Supreme Court briefing on institution and time-bar issues. There is no basis to describe him as a regular IPR/PGR practitioner.

Bar / education. Admitted in Texas (Tex. Bar No. 24070671); admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First through Tenth Circuits and the Federal Circuit, and the N.D., E.D., W.D., and S.D. of Texas. J.D., University of Texas School of Law (with honors, 2009); Ph.D. in English & American Literature, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; M.F.A., University of Idaho; B.A., Brigham Young University. No USPTO patent-bar registration was found.

Note on sourcing: the structured case entry is untitled and unverifiable in detail; the patent-specific content above rests on Kilpatrick Townsend news releases and Law360 coverage of Thryv, plus Texas Lawbook and firm announcements for firm history. Verify the single tracked appearance against the docket before relying on it.