William F. Dolan

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

William F. Dolan — FisherBroyles (Chicago) — prepared 2026-09-30

Focus and specialty. Dolan's tracked patent docket is a single case, so his patent-specific profile rests on thin data. That case — JiMi IP, LLC et al. v. Funcity Adventure Park, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-05275 (N.D. Ill., filed June 24, 2024; terminated Apr. 25, 2025) — involved mechanical/structural arts rather than electronics or life sciences: three patents (U.S. 10,478,737; 8,066,578; 11,376,513) covering aerial adventure park and zip-track systems, asserted against a commercial ropes-course operator. Firm and press materials describe him as a general complex-litigation trial lawyer first, with antitrust, consumer class actions, employment/non-compete, corporate governance, and international arbitration as core areas, and intellectual property (trademark, copyright, trade secret) disputes as a secondary component of a wider commercial practice. He does not appear to hold himself out as a patent specialist, and no Wi-Fi/standards-essential, software, or pharma patent work surfaced in searchable sources.

Side preference. On the authoritative counts he is plaintiff-side only (1 plaintiff, 0 defendant) and served as lead counsel. That single appearance sits in an NPE-adjacent posture: JiMi IP, LLC is characterized in third-party litigation analyses as a patent assertion/portfolio licensor, asserting patents alongside co-plaintiff Ropes Courses, Inc. There is not enough data to say he regularly prosecutes for NPEs, and his broader commercial practice includes defense work (products liability, class action defense), so treat the plaintiff-only figure as a sample artifact rather than a settled side preference.

Firm context. Dolan joined FisherBroyles as a Chicago-based partner in January 2024, following a long partnership at Jones Day; his bio also lists Kirkland & Ellis and Bell Boyd & Lloyd. His patent-related representations appear to be recent FisherBroyles-era work rather than a career-long patent litigation practice.

Notable outcomes. In the tracked patent matter, all claims and counterclaims were dismissed by stipulation without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), each side bearing its own fees, with a conditional conversion to dismissal with prejudice after 90 days absent an enforcement proceeding; the referenced separate settlement agreement is confidential and no infringement or validity finding was made. Beyond patents, he has publicly reported trying dozens of matters to verdict and serving as lead trial counsel in a federal RICO suit on behalf of military veterans against a predatory-lending ring. PTAB/IPR: no IPR, PGR, or other PTAB appearance for this attorney was found; no evidence of standing PTAB practice. Bar/education: Illinois bar; Trial Bar, N.D. Ill.; admitted in the First, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits; J.D., Columbia Law School (1982); B.A., Columbia College (1979); certified mediator (Pepperdine Caruso).