Jason Wenker focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation in federal and state courts across the country, with significant experience in multi-count cases involving contract, intellectual property, and technology disputes. Mr. Wenker has handled cases with claims for breach of contract (such as non-disclosure agreements), fraud, unfair trade practices, misappropriation of trade secrets, patent infringement, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement. He works closely with clients from the outset to conduct early case assessments and identify cost-effective dispute resolution strategies. He also assists companies with product safety issues, including evaluating and implementing product recalls in conjunction with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
During his more than 15 years of practice, Mr. Wenker has handled a variety of complex litigation matters for companies including E.I. du Pont de Nemours, LabCorp, Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, Hanesbrands Inc., Tempur Sealy, and Kennametal Inc. and has successfully resolved litigation matters via summary judgment, mediated settlements, arbitration, and trial. He has been recognized in 2018 and the four years immediately preceding as a North Carolina "Super Lawyer" by Super Lawyers magazine and was named to the Triad Business Journal's "40 Leaders Under 40" list.
Representing owner of the Lilly Pulitzer brand and designs sold under that brand in a copyright dispute with the alleged infringer of multiple designs. Case pending. Dazzle Up LLC v. Sugartown Worldwide LLC, No. 17-CV-15 (M.D.N.C. filed Jan. 6, 2017).
Represented battery technology company in litigation brought by competitor involving claims of direct and indirect infringement of multiple patents. Case settled by the parties.
Defended technology company in the North Carolina Business Court against claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment related to the replacement of the plaintiff’s existing software system. Resolved shortly after early mediation while Defendant's motion to dismiss was pending.
Represented emerging smart grid technology company in a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court involving a breach of a development and supply agreement’s requirement to pay a $60 million minimum license commitment over five years. Resolved matter on the eve of trial. Itron, Inc. v. Consert, Inc., No. 7720-VCL (Del. Ch. filed July 25, 2012).
Defending in North Carolina Business Court and Texas State Court multiple former officers and directors of Consert, Inc., the company who acquired Consert, Inc., an investment bank, and other parties against various claims brought by former shareholders of Consert, Inc. including breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of the North Carolina Securities Act, conversion, and violation of North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act related to the merger of Consert, Inc. into another company. The North Carolina Business Court has granted 10 defendants’ motions to dismiss, with two motions remaining to be heard. Cases pending. Worley v. Moore, 15 CVS 001316 (N.C. Super. Ct. filed Nov. 9, 2015); Bennett v. Moore, 2017CI05787 (Bexar County, Texas filed March 29, 2017).
Defended world’s leading mattress manufacturer in litigation involving claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of a non-disclosure agreement related to smart mattress technology. Obtained voluntary dismissal early in the discovery process. Blue Ocean Laboratories, Inc. v. Tempur Sealy Int’l, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00331 (M.D.N.C. filed Apr. 20, 2015).
Represent and advise manufacturers, retailers, distributors, and importers with regard to product safety matters, complying with applicable regulations, and conducting consumer product recalls in conjunction with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Work closely with the CPSC and independent experts to evaluate potential safety issues and implement corrective action related to a variety of consumer products, including smartphones, appliances, recreational products, children’s toys, electrical and battery powered devices, apparel, furniture, and household goods.
Represented Hanesbrands Inc. against contract, fraud, unfair trade practices, and related claims brought by former exclusive distributor in Israel who sought eight-figure damages. Case resolved at mediation.
Represented world’s leading health care diagnostics company in federal case involving trade secrets and copyright infringement claims stemming from a software license agreement. Case resolved after mediation before any depositions were taken. System Solutions v. LabCorp, et al., 4:15-cv-00690 (W.D. Mo. filed Sept. 9, 2015).
Representation of Kennametal Inc., a $2 billion per year NYSE company, in a patent litigation action that its biggest global competitor filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, alleging that Kennametal infringed certain metal cutting tool patents. Successfully transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania – Kennametal's home jurisdiction – pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) and forced a voluntary dismissal of one of the two patents. Obtained a favorable claim construction ruling in which the remaining patent was found invalid for indefiniteness. The parties later entered an agreement resolving their disputes in this action and other related actions. Sandvik Intellectual Prop. AB v. Kennametal Inc., No. 09-0163 (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 27, 2009); Sandvik Intellectual Prop. AB, v. Kennametal Inc., No. 10-654 (W.D. Pa. filed May 13, 2010).
Represented Kennametal in a patent litigation matter in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that Kennametal’s largest global competitor and related entities infringe claims of two patents owned by Kennametal. Obtained an agreement for one entity to cease infringing one of the patents. The parties were still litigating the other patent, which related to metal cutting tools, at the time of settlement. Kennametal Inc. v. Sandvik, Inc. d/b/a Sandvik Coromant Co., et al., No. 09-cv-00857, (W.D. Pa. filed June 29, 2009).
Served as global coordinating counsel in a patent litigation action that Sandvik filed in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, United Kingdom. After a bench trial, the Court found Sandvik's patent invalid for indefiniteness, lack of enablement, and obviousness. Sandvik Intellectual Property AB, Claimant and Kennametal UK Limited, Kennametal Inc., Kennametal Europe GMBH, Defendants; Claim No. HC 10 C02090, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court.
Represented Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., a subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., in false patent marking qui tam case filed in the Middle District of North Carolina involving pesticide resistant soybean seeds. Obtained dismissal.
Defended Primo Water Corporation, a national supplier of water dispensers, against claims for trademark infringement, false designation, and unfair competition. Resolved case prior to commencement of discovery. The Meyer Company v. Primo Water Corp., 17-CV-357 (N.D. Ohio filed Feb. 21, 2017).
Represented a supplier of motion furniture mechanisms in a lawsuit brought by a large furniture manufacturer alleging patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and tortious interference with business relations. Transferred case from the Northern District of Texas to the Middle District of North Carolina, secured withdrawal of patent claim, and resolved matter before engaging in e-discovery or conducting depositions. American Leather Operations, et al. v. Ultra-Mek, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04496-N (M.D.N.C. filed Nov. 8, 2013).
Served as lead counsel on behalf of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company against claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair trade practices, fraud, breach of a non-disclosure agreement, and patent infringement related to printing solvent formula, and counter-sued for patent infringement and unfair trade practices. Obtained summary judgment in full on plaintiff's claims and an injunction in the countersuit. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. NUPRO Technologies, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-00199 (M.D.N.C. filed Mar. 25, 2006); NuPro Techs., Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co., No. 06-1061 (M.D.N.C. filed Dec. 11, 2006).
University of North Carolina School of Law, J.D. (2001)
University of North Carolina, B.A., History (1997)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
North Carolina Business Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce, Board Member
Crosby Scholars, Board Member and Chair of Governance Committee
Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Board of Visitors
Chief Justice Joseph Branch Inn of Court, Barrister
21st Judicial District Bar Association, Bar Candidate Committee, Member and past Chair
Forsyth County Bar Association, Member
Leadership North Carolina, Class of 2013
Cook Elementary School, Volunteer
Habitat for Humanity, Volunteer
Centenary United Methodist Church, Staff Parish Relations Committee, Member (Former)
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.