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. Our Business Litigation attorneys handle a wide variety of complex business issues – antitrust and trade regulation, creditor representation - insolvency, class actions, corporate criminal and regulatory defense, distributorships and dealerships/franchising, employment, financial, health care, intellectual property, and special business situations.
"This is obviously a good firm to use for important matters, because it is very attuned to litigation."
- 2007 Chambers USA Americas 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.
Whom We Represent
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 " headed by a partner with experience 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 Advisors Group is 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
Minnesota Tobacco Litigation: Historic $6.13 billion settlement on behalf of State of Minnesota in state antitrust and consumer fraud litigation; also obtained $469 million on behalf of client Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota.
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)
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.
Class Actions
Tow Distributing v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota: 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.
Timothy Herman, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc.: 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)
Michael Baim, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al.: 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.
Kass & Moses v. Pitney Bowes Credit Corporation: 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.
Financial Litigation
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.
Health Care Litigation
United States of America ex rel. Brown, et al. v. AdvancePCS, Inc.: Civ. No. 02-CV-9236 (E.D. Pa. 2002) and United States of America ex rel. Schumann v. Advance Paradigm, Inc., Civil Action No. 03-CV-5425 (E.D. Pa. 2003). Represented three whistleblowers in suits against AdvancePCS and Advance Paradigm alleging False Claims Act violations, which settled for $137,500,000. This was the first F.C.A. settlement involving claims against a pharmacy benefits manager.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, Federated Mutual Insurance Company, and Health Care Service Corporation v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.: The jury's verdict found that Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex violated state antitrust laws and awarded damages in excess of $12 million to plaintiffs (our clients). The Court is considering post-trial motions to treble the award. The jury found that the defendants had restrained trade and acted willfully in excluding generic competitors' access to raw material for two popular anti-anxiety medications, lorazepam, the generic equivalent of Ativan®, and clorazepate, the generic equivalent of Tranxene®.
In re Synthroid Marketing Antitrust Litigation: Representation of health insurers and Blue plans in claims to portion of $45 million settlement of class action.
In re Lorazepam and Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation: Representation of health insurers and Blue plans in claims to portion of $30 million settlement of class action.
Defended Fortune 1000 company in defense of a multi-million dollar litigation, involving employment, healthcare, and business litigation claims.
Intellectual Property Litigation and Licensing
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.
Litigation Practices > Business Litigation