Jason Keener is Managing Member of Miller Johnson’s Chicago Office and Chair of Miller Johnson’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice group.

Jason has over 22 years of experience in litigating intellectual property and technology disputes in federal courts across the country. Jason has a computer science background and regularly handles cases in the software, internet, technology, and automotive fields. He regularly represents clients seeking to enforce or monetize their intellectual property assets as well as defending clients against claims of infringement asserted by both competitors and non- practicing entities. 

Jason assists clients in resolving intellectual property disputes with a focus on the business goals of the client. Often this involves pre-litigation or early resolution of the dispute. However, where necessary, Jason leads the case through trial and any appeal, which he has successfully done for numerous clients. He ensures that his clients are represented by a lean but scalable team of litigators and technical support that avoids the inefficient use of his client’s resources. 

Innovative solutions are an integral part of Jason’s litigation philosophy. As part of that philosophy, Jason not only looks for opportunities to push intellectual property law in novel ways but also presents clients with alternative billing arrangements that allow for a measure of certainty or predictability of often unpredictable litigation costs. 

Prior to joining Miller Johnson, Jason was the managing partner of Irwin IP, a boutique intellectual property litigation firm.  He previously was a Partner at an AmLaw 50 law firm.

Representative Matters

• Represented a large fitness equipment manufacturer against claims of copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation regarding advertisements and videos displayed on fitness equipment
• Represented a Fortune 500 automotive aftermarket supplier in two of the largest cases in the recent history of the International Trade Commission (ITC), which included obtaining the first ever 100-day expedited proceedings (on the domestic industry issue) and, after largely adverse administrative law judge determinations, the full ITC agreeing on the domestic industry issue and prevailing on all 41 asserted design patents
• Represented remote automotive diagnostic company against claims of patent infringement
• Represented manufacturer of leveling systems for recreational vehicles against patent infringement claims asserted by the market leader
• Representing developer of eye tracking systems for improving the effectiveness of advertising in asserting patent portfolio against market competitors
• Representing the owner of the intellectual property rights in a major motion picture character in asserting copyright and trademark rights against unauthorized derivatives
• Representing equipment servicing company against claims of copyright and trademark claims for use of competitor’s technical drawings in servicing and maintaining competitor’s equipment
• Represented an educational course management software company against patent infringement claims asserted by competitor. Successfully resolve the case through the development of a redesigned system while simultaneously invaliding the asserted patent through trial and on appeal
• Represented a financial institution against patent infringement claims directed to processing of encrypted check images. Successfully resolved the dispute at trial, despite the overwhelming majority of financial institutions settling prior to trial
• Represented a global game manufacturer in asserting dozens of copyright and trade secret claims against an internet startup manufacturing infringing products. Successfully resolved the dispute through trial and enforcement of injunctive relief 
• Represented a global online discount platform against patent infringement claims asserted by numerous non-practicing entities. Disputes resolved through aggressive pre-complaint tactics, invalidating the asserted patents at the Patent Office, and through early dispositive motion practice against patent-ineligible subject matter
• Represented the internet branch of a major league sports organization against patent infringement claims related to generating computer simulations and representations of live events. Successfully resolved the dispute after acquiring rights from inventor’s prior employer
• Represented a lighting manufacturer and distributor against patent infringement claims directed to LED lighting fixtures. Successfully resolved the dispute after summary judgment filings. 
• Represented a global food manufacturing and processing conglomerate against patent infringement claims directed to a core product. Successfully resolved the dispute through seeking declaratory relief and aggressively seeking early depositions of the inventors
• Represented multinational software corporation in asserting copyright and trade secret claims against a competitor’s product developed by former employees of the corporation. Successfully resolved the dispute through obtaining an injunction and sustaining the injunction even in the face of a purported “clean room” redevelopment of the software 

Papers, Seminars, and Teachings

• American Marketing Association Chicago, Workshop: What You Should Know About the Legal Side of Branding & Marketing (May 2025)
• Editor, Irwin IP Cases of the Week (2024-2025)
• IP Disputes for Game and Toy Makers, People of Play (Nov 2024)
• Intellectual Property for Creatives, Indy Pop Con 2024
• Future of Copyright Fair Use, 67th Annual Intellectual Property, Information & Privacy Law Conference (Nov 2023)
• IP Disputes for Game and Toy Makers, People of Play (Nov 2023)
• Be Careful What You Admit to During Oral Argument, Google v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc., 2022 WL 17491972 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2022)
• CAFC Trims the Fat from Meat Slicer Patent Dispute: Additional Evidence on Reply Was Permissible in IPR, Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. (Federal Circuit 2022)
• States Cannot Force Publishers to License Public Libraries, Ass’n of Am. Publishers v. Frosh, No. DLB-21-3133 (D. Md. Jun. 13, 2022)
• Again, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Likely Does Not Protected “Ungated” Date, 9th Circuit, HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., Case No. 17-16783 (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022)
• Implications of Remote Working on Proper Venue: Covid-19 Does Not Change the rules, but Can Cause Improper Venue, GreatGigz Sol., LLC v. ZipRecruiter, Inc., 21-CV-00172 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2022)
• Presentation on Basics of Intellectual Property, Dose Media (Nov 2017)
• A Tale of 2 Fed. Circ. Inter Partes Review Affirmances, Law360 (Aug 2017)
• Asetek v. CMI: Fed. Circ. Guidance on Enjoining Nonparties, Law360 (May 2017)
• Can A Patent Be Both Abstract and Not Absract?, Law360 (March 2017)
• 10 Ways Congress Tried to Address NPE Litigation in 2013, Law360 (Jan 2014)
• IP Issues at the Frontline – Offensive and Defensive Strategies That Win the Game (Oct 2013)
• The Supreme Court’s Affirmance of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega leaves open some issues (Dec. 14, 2010)
• Claims of Joint Infringement now face Additional hurdles (Dec. 2010)