Business Litigation
Background
Our client's future hinges on a case's outcome - that's why we start every case as if it will end up in trial. Lawyers in the Business Litigation group handle a wide variety of complex business issues - antitrust and trade regulation, class actions, creditor representation-insolvency, distributorships and dealerships/franchising, employment, entertainment and media, government and internal investigations, health care, intellectual property, and securities and financial.
"This firm is a powerful force in litigation."
- 2009 Chambers USA America's Leading Lawyers for Business Guide
"We were up against hard-assed litigators [from Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi], and we got smoked."
- Quote that appeared in Corporate Counsel, March 2001
We effectively meld trial strategy with business savvy to achieve the result that best serves our client's interests. And, we are proven, experienced trial attorneys in “bet the farm, bet the company” litigation – we have the results to back it up.
Our Clients
We litigate and try major complex cases in every region in the United States for parties ranging from Fortune 500 Companies to small, medium and very large businesses to government to individuals. Our clients are from a variety of industries including financial services, industrial and manufacturing, insurance, health care, medical devices, food, retail and communications. No matter what industry is served, we focus on the litigation strategy as an integrated element of your business strategy.
Core Team Staffing
Our years of experience in risk-sharing with clients in complex matters helped us develop a nontraditional approach to how to staff our cases. We handpick a select, limited group of specific lawyers to create a "core team." Led by a partner experienced in team management, each core team member is responsible for and capable of handling any aspect of the case. Each member has an in-depth understanding of all areas of the case. We believe a core team approach enhances client communication, an appreciation of the nuances of complex strategy and perhaps most importantly, efficiency. Unlike the traditional approach, where for example, separate "liability teams" and "damages teams" are created, a core member can fill any role. When circumstances require additional assistance (as in review of large document production), the core team directs additional lawyers for that task. Once completed, those additional lawyers are "spun off" the case to other matters so that unnecessary duplication and cost overrun is avoided. The lead partner is charged with ensuring that the core team is run efficiently and economically.
Our firm has an in-house support team of highly skilled individuals to assist our attorneys in providing the most creative and most effective solutions for our clients. We identified the advantage of and have pioneered the concept of in-house scientists to more effectively serve our clients. Our scientists assist in all types of litigation, concentrating in the area of patent litigation.
Our
Financial and Economic Consultants are comprised of legal financial analysts and a forensic accountant. They handle a wide variety of financial, economic, accounting, and other quantitative issues and analyses to assist our litigation attorneys and clients.
Trial technology goes to the heart of each trial team. Our trial consultants closely mimic the activities of the team without the use of technology, then take each step and apply technology aspects that enhance their presentation. Technology gives the added benefit to attorneys to show their story, not just tell it. Retention and comprehension increase with the use of technology, especially when utilized in a streamlined approach.
Selected Results*
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Digital Sun v. The Toro Company: Obtained summary dismissal of complaint asserted against The Toro Company, alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws (Sherman and Clayton Acts), as well as California unfair business practices and common law fraud. The complaint involved smart sprinkler technology, and arose out of Toro's consideration of a potential business relationship with the named plaintiff regarding that technology, including the licensing of certain intellectual property related to that technology. The issues presented in the motion to dismiss included the plausibility of the allegations under the standard set forth in the Supreme Court's decision in Twombly, as well as the intersection between the antitrust and patent laws. The dismissal briefing focused on key points in the related documentation and dealings which confirmed the business reality existing between the parties, thereby overcoming an otherwise complex set of allegations presented in the complaint. The matter settled shortly after the summary dismissal.
In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation: Currently serves as lead counsel for Plaintiff Class in In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1720). Represents a Class of all merchants in the United States who accept Visa or MasterCard payment cards against Visa, MasterCard and the nation's largest banks. In the largest ever antitrust case the Class asserts claims under Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.: Represented defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and PacifiCare, Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit involving alleged price-fixing and fraud related to prescription drug reimbursement under the federal Medicare Part D program. Plaintiff Omnicare sought damages exceeding $1 billion and permanent injunctive relief. After summary judgment motion was argued in August 2008, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims in January 2009. Published decision: Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Summary judgment was subsequently affirmed. Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 629 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2011).
Minnesota Tobacco Litigation: In May 1998, we reached an historic settlement in the State of Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota's lawsuit against the major cigarette manufacturers after 15 weeks of trial. The case was settled for $6.13 billion on behalf of the State of Minnesota and $469 million on behalf of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota. The discovery obtained by the firm is being used by other states, private litigants and foreign countries.
Vitamins Antitrust Litigation: Represented many large purchasers of bulk vitamins in “opt-out” actions challenging foreign cartel conduct. Obtained settlements several times the value of the recoveries by the class plaintiffs.
Obtained summary judgment in favor of its defendant client on various antitrust and common law claims involving the snowmobile racing industry.
Augustine Medical, Inc. v. Tyco et al: Obtained summary judgment dismissing an antitrust counterclaim to a patent infringement suit.
PSI Repair Services, Inc. v. Honeywell Inc.: Defense judgment in favor of Honeywell, dismissing tying and monopolization claims, affirmed by Sixth Circuit.
Bischoff v. DirecTV: 180 F.Supp.2d 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2002)
Class Action Litigation
Represented Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) in defending against class-action counterclaims which sought to invalidate arbitration awards in which the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) acted as the arbitration organization. After the Minnesota Attorney General sued the NAF in 2009, alleging that the NAF was secretly owned by a hedge fund that held a large stake in the debt-collection industry, the NAF settled and numerous consumers filed class actions against the NAF which were consolidated as part of multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL). PRA opted out of the MDL. NAF and other defendants in the MDL ultimately settled by dismissing pending NAF arbitrations and paying over $3 million in cash. The NAF's MDL settlement agreement confirms that the value of the consumer arbitration claims dismissed following the 2009 settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General is at least $1,090,000,000. In November 2010, PRA obtained a dismissal of Defendant/Counterclaimant Freeman's counterclaims with prejudice on the pleadings, as well as an order confirming the arbitration award. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Freeman, No. COA11-220, 2011 N.C. App. LEXIS 2233 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2011).
In re Imagitas, Inc. DPPA Litigation: Defended government contractor in ten state class actions alleging that the insertion of advertising into motor vehicle registration mailings violated the federal Drivers' Privacy Protection Act,and subjected the contractor to $2,500 in statutory damages per person. Transferred all cases to a single court for pretrial coordination. The district court then granted summary judgment in a test case, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Defended Blue Cross in this class action lawsuit brought on behalf of its subscribers. The plaintiffs claimed over $400 million that Blue Cross had previously recovered from the tobacco industry. The claims of the individual plaintiffs were dismissed, and the claims of the plaintiff fully insured groups were then settled for $41 million (which included $30 million already designated for payment to the groups by the Minnesota Commerce Department). The Court reduced plaintiffs' request for attorneys fees by $1.5 million following our client's objection.
Obtained summary judgment in alleged statewide class action seeking a refund of sales tax related to delivery and haul away charges. Dismissal was affirmed in the Michigan Appellate Court. 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 695 (Mich. 2005)
Dismissal of alleged nationwide class action complaint seeking recovery for Breach of Contract and for alleged violations of the Magnuson Moss Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The court dismissed all claims and the plaintiff abandoned his appeal.
Obtained summary judgment on initial responsive motion in an alleged nationwide class action alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
Defense of several large insurers in class actions brought in more than fifteen states that generally allege violations of state antitrust statutes and other state statutes. Obtained dismissal of several of these actions at an early stage of litigation.
Defeated summary judgment in case claiming failure to pay overtime involving over 400 plaintiffs; obtained summary dismissal of one lead named plaintiff, finding that named plaintiff was exempt from overtime under the FLSA (Carlson et. al v. C.H. Robinson 2005 WL 758601).
Settlement of a securities fraud class action following dismissal by the Federal District Court and after full appellate briefing to a Circuit Court of Appeals.
Obtained dismissal of claims against large specialty retailer in nationwide consumer fraud class action involving repair and service contracts.
Summary judgment in connection with claims of alleged fraudulent and improper sales tax charges.
Defeated class certification in case claiming nationwide hostile environment harassment against employer, and obtained summary dismissal of individual sexual harassment claims of 10 of the 12 named plaintiffs (Carlson et. al. v. C.H. Robinson, 2005 WL 758602).
Defeated class certification in alleged nationwide class action alleging consumer fraud in matter that plaintiff valued in excess of $1 billion.
Defense of client in multi-venue, multi-party litigation alleging RICO and other claims, and resulting in consolidation before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Creditor Representation - Insolvency
Intrepid USA: Representing sole equity security holder of one of the largest home health care businesses in the U.S. in its Chapter 11 case and the jointly administered Chapter 11 cases of its nearly 60 affiliates.
Sun Country Airlines: Represented first air carrier to file bankruptcy post 9/11, resulting in sale of airline and its reemergence as a Minneapolis-based, lower-cost carrier.
Olympic Pipeline Company: Contested confirmation in oil pipeline reorganization on behalf of business interruption insurers holding in excess of $500 million in claims.
NRG, Inc.: Advised outside directors of Xcel Energy in out-of-court workout and pre-negotiated Chapter 11 of troubled subsidiary involving $10 billion of debt.
Best Buy Co. Inc.: Assisted retailer in divestiture of distressed subsidiary, Musicland Stores Corp., and as a creditor in Chapter 11 cases such as Montgomery Wards, Bradlees and K-Mart.
ABC Bus Companies, Inc.: Representation of seller/lessor of highway coaches in bankruptcy cases throughout U.S.
Obtained multi-million dollar exception to discharge in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of a Commercial Bank from Houston, Texas.
Entertainment and Media Litigation
Celador International, Ltd. v. The Walt Disney Company: Represented Celador International, Ltd. in a dispute over profits from the highly successful television show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" A federal jury awarded Celador, the creator of the show, $270 million in damages after finding that Disney's subsidiaries, ABC Television, Buena Vista Television, and Valleycrest Productions had breachedtheir profitsharing contract with Celador and their duty to deal fairly and in good faith with Celador. On September 27, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California awarded $50 million in prejudgment interest to Celador, bringing the total to $320 million in damages.
Health Care Litigation
Chehalem Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Coventry Health Care, Inc. Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.: Obtained an order denying class certification to claims by a health care provider that Coventry Health Care, Inc., recommended incorrect discounts under its provider contracts on bills that network providers submitted to workers' compensation insurers. The court agreed with Coventry that individual issues, including an inability to ascertain members of the class as the plaintiff defined it, made class treatment inappropriate.
Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.: Represented defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and PacifiCare, Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit involving alleged price-fixing and fraud related to prescription drug reimbursement under the federal Medicare Part D program. Plaintiff Omnicare sought damages exceeding $1 billion and permanent injunctive relief. After summary judgment motion was argued in August 2008, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims in January 2009. Published decision: Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Summary judgment was subsequently affirmed. Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 629 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2011).
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, American Medical Security Life Insurance Company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska, Carefirst, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware, Inc., Excellus Health Plan, Inc., Hawaii Medical Service Association, Health Care Services Corporation, Horizon Health Care Services, Inc., Humana Inc., Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company, Medical Mutual of Ohio, Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, Oxford Health Plans, LLC, Wellmark, Inc., The Regence Group, Time Insurance Company, Union Security Insurance Company, John Alden Life Insurance Company v. Glaxosmithkline plc, et al.: Representation of Blues plans and other health insurers in litigation against drug manufacturer for overpayments made for the prescription drug Paxil and Paxil CR. After lengthy discovery and numerous pretrial motions on claims which included allegations of antitrust violations arising from manufacturers' use of patents to keep generics out of the market, we obtained settlement for our clients in the fall of 2008.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, American Medical Security Life Insurance Company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware, Inc., Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Louisiana Health Services & Indemnity Company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Carefirst, Inc., Excellus Health Plan, Inc., Federated Mutual Insurance Company, Health Care Services Corporation, Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, Time Insurance Company, Union Security Insurance Company, John Alden Life Insurance Company, WellPoint, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., Warner-Lambert Company LLC, et al.: Representation of Blues plans and other health insurers in litigation against drug manufacturer for overpayments made for the prescription drug Neurontin.
In re: Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation: Representation of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and Federated Mutual Insurance Company in litigation before the federal District Court in the District of Columbia involving claims of state antitrust law violations regarding competitors' access to raw materials for Lorazepam and Clorazepate. The jury's verdict found that Mylan Laboratories Inc./Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambrex Corporation, and Gyma Laboratories violated state antitrust laws and had restrained trade and acted willfully in excluding generic competitors' access. In post-trial motions, the District Court awarded Plaintiffs treble damages, for a total award to all plaintiffs of $76.8 million. The case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings following the D.C. Circuit opinion of January 18, 2011.
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Clue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Blue Shield of California, CareFirst, Inc., Excellus Health Plan, Inc., The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, Hawaii Medical Service Association, Health Care Service Corporation, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Humana, Inc., Mutual of Omaha, Regence Blue Shield of Idaho, Wellchoice, Inc., Wellmark, Inc.. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, et al: Representation of Blues plans and other health insurers in litigation against drug manufacturers for overpayments made for the prescription drug BuSpar. On claims which included allegations of antitrust violations arising from manufacturers' use of patents to keep generics out of the market, we obtained settlement for our clients.
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Blue Shield of California, CareFirst, Inc., Excellus Health Plan, Inc., The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, Hawaii Medical Service Association, Health Care Service Corporation, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Humana, Inc., Mutual of Omaha, Regence Blue Shield of Idaho, Wellchoice, Inc., Wellmark, Inc.. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, et al: Representation of Blues plans and other health insurers in claims against drug manufacturers for overpayments made for the prescription drug Taxol.
In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation. Representation of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts as class representative and prevailing plaintiff in consumer fraud class action against manufacturers of various physician-administered medications.
Tow Distributing Inc., et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Inc.: Representation of Blue CrossBlue Shield of Minnesota in class action lawsuits filed on behalf of participants seeking to claim over $400 million recovered in a prior settlement with the tobacco companies. A settlement was finally approved in which Blue Cross contributed an additional $11 million to afund previously established for participants, leaving most of the tobacco settlement for programs needed in Minnesota to address health issues.
Intellectual Property Litigation
Represented Honeywell Inc. in the enforcement of a series of patents related to GPS and navigational systems for use in the recreational marine industry. Filed suit in 2009 in district court; while the patents were waiting re-examination, initiated proceedings before the International Trade Commission against one named defendant, Furuno Electric Co., related to additional acts of infringement of additional patents. Negotiated a successful resolution of that matter, along with resolution of that portion of the original district court action related to that defendant.
Efficient Drivetrains, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Corp.: Represented Efficient Drivetrains, Inc. in a dispute with Toyota Motor Corp. regarding a portfolio of fuel-efficient technology patents for hybrid and plug in hybrid vehicles. The dispute was resolved on February 21, 2012 when a confidential agreement was reached, providing Toyota with freedom to operate.
Convolve, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., Hitachi Global Storage Tech., Inc., Hitachi Ltd, and Western Digital Corp.: A case in which a federal jury in Marshall, Texas, found that the defendants had willfully infringed the patent of the firm's client, Convolve, Inc. The patent relates to hard disk drive technology. The verdict was announced on July 26, 2011.
Personal Audio LLC v. Apple Inc.: A patent infringement case in which a Texas federal jury awarded our client, Personal Audio LLC, $8 million in damages after finding that Apple's iPods infringed our client's patent for an audio player that can download or receive navigable playlists. The verdict was announced on July 8, 2011. The court also awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,182,331 for a total judgment of $12,182,331.
Advanced Micro Devices v. Samsung: Brought to resolution patent litigation for Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) against Samsung in the Northern District of California. The case involved allegations that Samsung's DRAM, SRAM and NAND memory products, its system logic products, and its consumer products infringed seven AMD patents covering technologies in memory architecture, processor micro-architecture, MOS-transistor fabrication and design, and user interface design for consumer products. Samsung asserted six patents against AMD's x86 processors and graphics processing units (GPUs) covering technologies in processor micro-architecture design, and semiconductor fabrication and process control. After three years of litigation and two mediations the parties resolved the matter at the close of expert discovery and dispositive motion briefing, shortly before trial. Reputed to be the 4th largest patent case settlement and/or verdict from Jan. 2010-June 2011.
Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Device: Represented Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) in patent litigation against Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) in the Western District of Wisconsin. The case involved three patents in the areas of graphics processing. The District Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on all three patents. The summary judgment was also based on a license SGI granted to Microsoft. The case was appealed to the Federal Circuit. AMD sustained two-thirds of the non-infringement issues appealed. The case was remanded to the District Court for resolution of remaining issues as to 5 claims on one patent. The case resolved shortly before trial after 37 motions-in-limine were filed by AMD.
Juniper Networks v. Shipley, Fed. Cir. No. 2010-1327: Defended inventor in a false patent marking case brought under 35 USC sec. 292 in the Northern District of California. Case dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal affirmed at the Federal Circuit on April 29, 2011.
Digital Sun v. The Toro Company: Obtained summary dismissal of complaint asserted against The Toro Company, alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws (Sherman and Clayton Acts), as well as California unfair business practicesand common law fraud. The complaint involved smart sprinkler technology, and arose out of Toro's consideration of a potential business relationship with the named plaintiff regarding that technology, including the licensing of certain intellectual property related to that technology. The issues presented in the motion to dismiss included theplausibility of the allegations under the standard set forth in the Supreme Court's decision in Twombly, as well as the intersection between the antitrust and patent laws.The dismissalbriefing focusedon key points in the related documentation and dealings which confirmed the business reality existing between the parties, therebyovercoming an otherwise complex set ofallegations presented in the complaint. The matter settled shortly after the summary dismissal.
Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elec. N.V., et al., 586 F.3d 980 (Fed. Cir. 2009): Convinced the appellate court to reverse the entry of judgment on the pleadings dismissing two of Imation's key counts, and instead to order judgment for Imation on the question of whether certain entities formed or acquired later qualify as "subsidiaries" that could benefit from Imation's patent license with Philips.
In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory Controllers, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-619: Represented Imation Corporation in a case of alleged patent infringement related to flash memory technology owned by SanDisk Corporation. The technology is used in several devices, most notably portable USB memory cards. Based on prior art, the International Trade Commission determined that patent 7,137,011 was invalid for obviousness and that Imation Corporation's products do not infringe the asserted claims.
WNS Holdings LLC et al. v. Northwest Airlines Inc.: Defended Northwest Airlines, Inc. in a patent infringement suit relating to GPS and avionics technology. Specifically, Plaintiffs accused Northwest of infringing the patents through the alleged use of Automatic Dependant Surveillance, including ADS-B. After extensive discovery, a dismissal of the action was obtained, and the client secured the right to potentially recover its fees and costs in the event of any future litigation.
Great Clips, Inc. v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, L.L.C. and Great Cuts, Inc.: Summary judgment granted to client, Great Clips, Inc., againstdeclaratory judgment defendant Great Cuts which had madeclaimsof trademark infringement following Great Clips' entry into the New England market. On February 19, 2009, the U.S. District Court of Massachusettsfound that aprevioussettlement agreementbarred Great Cuts' claims. On January 5, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the previous ruling by the District Court confirming Great Clips' right to use its trademarked name throughout the United States, including theNew Englandmarket.
Grantley Patent Holdings, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc.: A patent infringement case in which a federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas awarded Grantley Corporation $66 million. The jury found that Clear Channel Communications, Inc. infringed on four of Grantley Corporation's patents related to an integrated inventory management system for radio advertising time. The jury also found that the infringement was willful. The verdict was announced on April 22, 2008. On June 11, 2008, the court enhanced the damages by more than $16.5 million, awarded prejudgment interest and entered judgment totaling more than $89 million. The case settled while on appeal under confidential terms.
Ricoh Corp. v. Pitney Bowes Inc.: Defended Pitney Bowes in a patent infringement involving communications and control within Pitney Bowes' mailing machines. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Trenton Division, with Judge Brown presiding. The jury returned a verdict of invalidity in favor of Pitney Bowes finding anticipation of all 18 asserted claims. In addition, during trial, the Court entered summary judgment of anticipation of four additional claims. Jury decision was affirmed in a post-trial memorandum by the district court and summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Eolas Technologies, Inc. and The Regents of the University of California v. Microsoft Corporation: Represented Eolas Technologies, Inc. and the Regents of the University of California, in action for patent infringement of web browser technology for the delivery of interactive applications embedded in web pages. Jury verdict in favor of Eolas and the University of California, on issues of infringement, validity, and damages in the amount of $520.6 million. On January 14, 2004, the court entered judgment for $565,894,868 which includes the amount of the original verdict plus prejudgment interest. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of infringement and the damages award, and ordered that Microsoft's invalidity and inequitable conduct defenses be retried. The case settled on a confidential basis four days before the start of the invalidity trial.
Defended General Electric in a patent infringement action brought by General Motors involving planetary and compressor bearings used in diesel locomotive engines. Invalidity of the patents on the basis of on-sale bar was upheld by the Federal Circuit in Electromotive Div. of General Motors Corp. v. Transportation Systems Div. of General Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1650 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Intergraph v. Dell Inc., Gateway Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Co.: Represented by the firm, Intergraph reached a settlement agreement on all pending patent litigation with Hewlett-Packard Company, including the Company's OEM Clipper case. The terms of the settlement agreement include Hewlett-Packard paying Intergraph $141 million and the dismissal of all pending legal actions between Intergraph and Hewlett-Packard, as well as a cross-license to the other party's patent portfolio. This brings the total settlements to $396 million for Intergraph. Prior settlements were reached with Dell Inc. and Intel for $225 million. A settlement was reached with Gateway Inc. for $10 million and future royalties on Gateway and e-Machines Computer Systems sales. In addition, settlements were reached with IBM for $10 million and a cross license and with AMD for $10 million plus up to $5 million per year for three years.
TriStrata Technology, Inc. v. Mary Kay Inc.: Patent infringement case relating to alpha-hydroxy acid (AHA) anti-aging skin technology. Our client, TriStrata Technology, Inc., was awarded $26,359,405 in damages plus interest. The jury ruled in TriStrata’s favor on all issues of infringement and validity. The U.S. Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington, Del. issued a final judgment March 31, 2006 granting prejudgment and post-judgment interest to TriStrata Technology, Inc. bringing the total award to over $43 million. Case was summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit on January 10, 2007.
Honeywell Inc. v. Victor Company of Japan and U. S. JVC Corp.: Represented Honeywell Inc., in action for patent infringement of color filters in video cameras. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, Frank, Judge . Jury verdict in favor of Honeywell for $30 million, which reflects royalties of two percent of JVC’s sales of the accused camcorders to calculate past damages for the unlicensed use of the technology.
Union Oil Company of California "UNOCAL" v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.: Counsel in an action for patent infringement of UNOCAL’s patent on gasoline fuel, tried in the United State District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, Wardlaw, Judge. Jury verdict in favor of UNOCAL on liability, October, 1997; judgment for five months accrued infringement in the amount of $92 million; November 1997, unenforceability phase tried to Court, December, 1997. (208 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2000)); cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1183 (2000).
Sofamor Danek–United States Surgical: Represented Sofamor Danek in action for infringement of patent involving surgical method for patent 5,741,253, trial in United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Gibbons, Judge. After jury verdict on liability, matter settled during damages phase on undisclosed terms. (Civil Action No. 98-2369 G A)
Ergonomics, Inc. v. Microsoft, Inc.: Counsel in an action for patent infringement against Microsoft relating to ergonomic computer keyboards in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Rocket Docket"). Matter concluded without necessity of trial, April, 1996.
Advanced Communication Design, Inc. v. Premier Retail Networks, Inc.: (Case No. 01-1271, 1272, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) (Sept. 23, 2002).
Fonar v. General Electric: Represented Fonar Corporation and Dr. Raymond V. Damadian in a patent infringement action against General Electric involving patents on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines. At trial the jury awarded Fonar $110.5 million. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed almost the entire award, ordering General Electric to pay $103.4 million, reported at the time to be the largest patent infringement jury verdict ever upheld on appeal (IP Worldwide). Fonar Corporation v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 266 (1997). After the Supreme Court denied certiorari, General Electric paid Fonar $128 million (judgment plus interest).
St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Sony Corp. et al.: No. 01-557 (D. Del., filed Aug. 14, 2001) a case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded St. Clair, $25 million after a finding that Sony infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology. The verdict was announced on February 25, 2003. The parties entered into a license agreement two days later, the terms of which are confidential.
Represented multi-national/Fortune 500 company in the defense and dismissal of a patent infringement action.
Represented a Fortune 100 company in patent infringement action involving liquid crystal display technology.
Represented a dental manufacturing company in a multi-million dollar trademark action.
Securities and Financial Litigation
Successfully prosecuted claims on behalf of a large home-furnishings company and national franchisor for fraud, breach of contract, intentional interference, and unlawful business practices against private equity funds and their principals, ultimately resulting in the entire preferred return (in excess of $49 million) associated with stock issued to the private equity funds being eliminated and the preferred shares surrendered to the company for less than half of the amount of the original principal investment of the private equity funds.
Successfully defended the directors and officers of a large privately held corporation in litigation brought by a minority private equity investor alleging various claims including breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud resulting in a complete dismissal.
Minnesota Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Association et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.: A Ramsey County jury awarded $30.1 million to four Minnesota non-profits that the firm represented in an action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The four non-profits-Minnesota Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Association, Minnesota Medical Foundation, The Minneapolis Foundation, and Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi Foundation for Children-participated in a securities lending program run by Wells Fargo. The bank represented that the collateral in the program would be invested in short-term money market instruments, where the prime considerations would be safety of principal and liquidity. Instead, the bank invested a substantial portion of the collateral in risky and/or illiquid securities, including complex structured investments. The jury found that Wells Fargo breached its fiduciary duty and violated the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and awarded $30.1 million in damages. In post trial orders, the trial court awarded Plaintiffs $10.2 million in attorneys' fees, and $1.2 million in costs and disbursements. The trial court also awarded Plaintiffs forfeiture of fees by Wells Fargo of $656,725. The trial court also awarded pre-and post-judgment interest. This was the first trial and recovery of this type in the country. On April 16, 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the trial court.
Greg LeMond, et. al v. Blixseth Group, Inc., et. al: Filed suit in May 2006, represented three-time Tour de France winner, Greg LeMond, a former high-ranking banker at JP Morgan Chase, a Wisconsin corporation, and two other individuals in a minority-shareholder lawsuit against Timothy Blixseth, the then-billionaire majority owner of the elite Yellowstone Club located near Big Sky, Montana, and certain related entities. After valuing receiving a cash and land buy-out offer of less than $12 million collectively, our clients alleged fraudulent practices relating to the management of Yellowstone Club assets. In October 2007, our clients reached a $38 million settlement which required two settlement payments to be made before February 2008. When the defendants did not make the second settlement payment, the suit was renewed and settled for $39.5 million. In this second settlement, our clients also obtained confessions of judgment, a mortgage on Blixseth's former home, and protection against having their Yellowstone Club memberships unfavorably affected. In 2008, Yellowstone Development, LLC and Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC filed for bankruptcy. Several interested parties in this bankruptcy litigation have relied upon and continue to repeatedly cite our work product in pursuit of claims against the debtors and others.
High-Yield Bond Litigation: Represented several institutional investors, including 5 mutual funds, which invested millions of dollars in high yield bonds issued by a Thai Steel Mill. The bonds were underwritten by U.S. investment banks and sold to the institutional investors under Rule 144A. Our clients sued two of the underwriters and another defendant for fraud and ultimately recovered by settlement just before trial about 80% of their out of pocket damages. The case required discovery from parties in and outside of the United States and involved complex financial and accounting issues. In the course of the litigation, we established, in two separate published opinions, that a sophisticated investor is not required to conduct an independent investigation as to the accuracy of statements made in an offering memorandum when there is nothing obviously suspicious about those statements.
AMEX Mutual Funds: We represented AMEX Mutual Funds in a few matters to recover assets when properties were improperly appraised and when the bond issuers defaulted on projects. We recovered assets from the companies, bond underwriters, trustee banks, and lawyers involved in the projects.
In re Workers Compensation Refund Litigation: We acted as lead counsel for casualty insurers who filed suit in federal court against the State of Minnesota to contest the legislative taking of excess workers compensation reinsurance premium payments. We obtained a summary judgment ruling on the basis that the action of the Minnesota Legislature violated the contract impairment clause of the Constitution of the United States. 842 F.Supp. 1211 (D.Minn. 1994). We then obtained an affirmance in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 46 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 1995). The prosecution of this case resulted in the refund of $700 million in excess premiums to the insurers.
Structured Settlements: As class counsel, we represented 250 injured plaintiffs pursuing claims against major banks, financial institutions and brokerage houses for the loss of U.S. Treasury Bonds which were intended to fund structured settlements to be paid over a twenty year span.
Litigation Practices > Business Litigation