Cases
CASES TRIED OR OTHERWISE TAKEN TO JUDGMENT: Hewlett-Packard v. Oracle(2011-2016)
Represented Hewlett-Packard in litigation relating to Oracle's 2011 decision to no longer develop new Oracle software products for HP's Itanium processor-based line of mission critical servers. The first phase, a bench trial in 2012, resulted in a declaratory judgment in favor of our client HP
against Oracle on all matters before the court,
established a contractual obligation to continue developing software products for the Itanium line of servers. In the second phase, tried in 2016, the jury returned a $3 billion verdict in favor of our client HP
rejected Oracle's counterclaims. (Superior Court for Santa Clara County, California
Judges Kleinberg
Kirwan.)
Rolls-Royce plc v. UTC (E.D. Va. 2005-2011)
Trial counsel for United Technologies Corporation in one-week patent trial regarding swept fan blade technology in Alex
ria, Virginia in December 2005. The Court ruled that the parties' respective patents did not interfere
that ruling was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Continued representation of UTC after the Federal Circuit ruling in 2010 when Rolls-Royce sued UTC for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Virginia. The technology at issue related to the jet engines (particularly the fan blades) used on the world's largest airplane, the Airbus A380, as well as a host of other airplanes. Rolls-Royce sought almost $4 billion in damages
an injunction preventing further sales of the accused engines. The Court granted summary judgment in United Technologies' favor, finding that United Technologies' engines did not infringe the Rolls-Royce patent. The Court also struck Rolls-Royce's multi-billion dollar damages theory on the grounds that it was based on misstatements of the law, a lack of sound evidence,
unsupported economic assumptions. For more information see Bloomberg Report.
In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation (Eastern District of New York 2005
Federal Circuit 2008
Superior Court of California, San Diego 2009
Second Circuit 2010
4th District California Court of Appeal 2011)
Counsel for Bayer AG
Bayer Corporation in nationwide class action antitrust litigation in connection with Bayer's settlement of patent litigation against Barr Laboratories. Bayer owns the patent on Cipro, one of the world's leading antibiotics. Barr sought approval from the FDA for a generic version of Cipro
, pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman statute, Bayer sued Barr in the Southern District of New York. On the eve of trial in January 1997, Bayer
Barr settled with Bayer making payments amounting to $398 million. Bayer defeated three later generic challenges.
The antitrust plaintiffs contend that it was an antitrust violation for Bayer to pay Barr to settle Hatch-Waxman litigation. The MDL proceeding was before Judge David G. Trager in the Eastern District of New York. Developed arguments
wrote Bayer's brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment that Bayer's payment was a per se antitrust violation. Judge Trager ruled in Bayer's favor
adopted Bayer's analytical framework for analyzing Hatch-Waxman settlements (261 F. Supp. 2d 188). Thereafter, the Eleventh
Second Circuit adopted Judge Trager's reasoning (402 F.3d 1056
466 F.3d 187).
Following the per se ruling, Judge Trager invited Bayer to file a motion for summary judgment. Again, developed arguments
wrote Bayer's briefs,
Judge Trager granted Bayer's motion (363 F. Supp. 2d 514). Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit, which transferred the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' (the consumers') appeal to the Federal Circuit due to an alleged state-law Walker Process-type claim based on fraud on the Patent Office. Wrote Bayer's appellate briefs in the Second
Federal Circuits. Both Circuits affirmed Judge Trager's decision
adopted his reasoning (544 F.3d 1323 (Fed Cir. 2008)
604 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2010)). The Supreme Court denied certiorari in both appeals,
the MDL federal litigation has concluded in Bayer's favor.
United States v. United Technologies Corp. (S.D. Ohio)
Represented UTC at trial
on appeal in the Department of Justice's $600 million False Claims Act lawsuit. The government claimed that UTC division Pratt & Whitney inflated prices of F-15
F-16 jet engines in the Great Engine War with GE, a multi-billion dollar competitive Air Force procurement in the 1980s.
After a ten-week bench trial, the trial court held that Pratt had made three false statements in a 1983 offer
imposed a $7.1 million statutory penalty, but the court rejected the government's $600 million damages theory,
held that actual damages were zero. After two rounds of appeals, the Sixth Circuit held that the trial record established that the government failed to prove any damages
rem
ed the case.
On rem
, the government ab
oned its damages claims,
in June 2016 the trial court entered final judgment awarding a total of $11.1 million ($1.2 million in disgorgement, $2.8 million in interest,
the $7.1 million penalty). The government declined to appeal, ending the case.
Bayer Schering v. Barr (District of New Jersey 2007-2009)
Trial counsel for Bayer Schering in ANDA IV Hatch Waxman litigation involving a patent on Yasmin against Barr Laboratories. On December 4, 2007, Judge Peter Sheridan, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, completed a two-week bench trial on Barr's challenges based on obviousness, invalidating public use,
inequitable conduct. The Court found the patent invalid due to obviousness
ruled for Bayer Schering on the public use
inequitable conduct challenges.
Rago, et al. v. Federal Signal Corporation (Cook County, Illinois 2008)
Trial counsel for Federal Signal in five-week jury trial of product liability claims brought by 27 Chicago firefighters. Plaintiffs alleged that Federal Signal sirens caused permanent hearing loss. Jury verdict for Federal Signal on all claims of all plaintiffs.
Hyseni v. I.N.S. (2004)
Trial counsel for a young Albanian woman in pro bono asylum hearing before Immigration Judge. Client requested asylum in the United States to escape persecution based gender. Asylum granted.
OTHER REPRESENTATIVE CASES: Carrier Class Action Litigation
Represented Carrier in four consumer class-action lawsuits relating to secondary heat exchangers in furnaces manufactured by Carrier. Won Wisconsin case on summary judgment. Other lawsuits settled.
Aventis Behring v. Bayer HealthCare
Bayer Corporation
Represented Bayer in breach of contract
patent litigation in Pennsylvania state
federal court relating to recombinant Factor VIII concentrates used in the treatment of hemophilia. Obtained bifurcation for an early trial of Bayer's license defense to Aventis's infringement action, after which the parties reached a settlement.
GenProbe v. Bayer HealthCare
Bayer Corporation
Represented Bayer HealthCare's diagnostic division in patent infringement suits related to GenProbe patents on nucleic acid detection assays. The cases settled favorably to Bayer.
Pulliam v. NL Industries, Inc.
Represented NL Industries, Inc. in putative class action alleging lead poisoning from a smelter located in Indianapolis, Indiana. Class certification denied.
