{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"106","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442316,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":217,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eElizabeth\u0026nbsp;D. Adler is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Data, Privacy\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Security practice based in Atlanta GA. Elizabeth advises\u0026nbsp;clients in responding to and managing data security incidents of all types and sizes, including crisis management and public relations efforts, investigations, notifications, and government inquiries. She also represents clients in privacy and data breach class action and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country, and has extensive experience successfully defending large, multi-district class action litigation arising out of some of the most prominent data security incidents. Elizabeth has prepared witnesses to testify before Congress and has briefed Congressional staffers on data breach issues. Law360 recognized her as a \"Rising Star\" in Privacy and Cybersecurity in 2019 (one of five attorneys named worldwide).[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth's representation of clients spans a variety of industries and regularly involve significant corporate risk and financial impact to global companies, are at the cutting-edge of U.S. and international law, and require innovative solutions to constantly evolving\u0026nbsp;privacy and security issues.\u0026nbsp;Clients consistently turn to Elizabeth as a key advisor to lead and manage\u0026nbsp;the many workstreams that an organization faces during data security incidents, and her work includes extensive experience defending\u0026nbsp;of some of the most prominent data security incidents in U.S. history, including Capital One and Equifax.\u0026nbsp;Her defense of class actions includes\u0026nbsp;defeating class claims alleging violations of data protection and privacy laws, violations of state and federal consumer protection statutes, fraud, and breaches of contract.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA regular author and speaker on data privacy and cybersecurity, Elizabeth also serves as the Editor for the Firm\u0026rsquo;s publication, the King \u0026amp; Spalding Data, Privacy \u0026amp; Security Practice Report.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Elizabeth served as a law clerk for United States District Judge Kristi K. DuBose in the Southern\u0026nbsp;District\u0026nbsp;of Alabama\u0026nbsp;in Mobile, Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is active in the Atlanta community and serves on the Board of Directors of The Atlanta Opera.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"elizabeth-adler","email":"eadler@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1143,"guid":"1143.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Adler","nick_name":"Elizabeth","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Kristi K. DuBose, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama","years_held":"2007-2008"}],"first_name":"Elizabeth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized in Leadership Academy Class of 2012","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, Young Lawyers Division"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eElizabeth\u0026nbsp;D. Adler is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Data, Privacy\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Security practice based in Atlanta GA. Elizabeth advises\u0026nbsp;clients in responding to and managing data security incidents of all types and sizes, including crisis management and public relations efforts, investigations, notifications, and government inquiries. She also represents clients in privacy and data breach class action and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country, and has extensive experience successfully defending large, multi-district class action litigation arising out of some of the most prominent data security incidents. Elizabeth has prepared witnesses to testify before Congress and has briefed Congressional staffers on data breach issues. Law360 recognized her as a \"Rising Star\" in Privacy and Cybersecurity in 2019 (one of five attorneys named worldwide).[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth's representation of clients spans a variety of industries and regularly involve significant corporate risk and financial impact to global companies, are at the cutting-edge of U.S. and international law, and require innovative solutions to constantly evolving\u0026nbsp;privacy and security issues.\u0026nbsp;Clients consistently turn to Elizabeth as a key advisor to lead and manage\u0026nbsp;the many workstreams that an organization faces during data security incidents, and her work includes extensive experience defending\u0026nbsp;of some of the most prominent data security incidents in U.S. history, including Capital One and Equifax.\u0026nbsp;Her defense of class actions includes\u0026nbsp;defeating class claims alleging violations of data protection and privacy laws, violations of state and federal consumer protection statutes, fraud, and breaches of contract.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA regular author and speaker on data privacy and cybersecurity, Elizabeth also serves as the Editor for the Firm\u0026rsquo;s publication, the King \u0026amp; Spalding Data, Privacy \u0026amp; Security Practice Report.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Elizabeth served as a law clerk for United States District Judge Kristi K. DuBose in the Southern\u0026nbsp;District\u0026nbsp;of Alabama\u0026nbsp;in Mobile, Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is active in the Atlanta community and serves on the Board of Directors of The Atlanta Opera.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized in Leadership Academy Class of 2012","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, Young Lawyers Division"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6249}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:02:09.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:02:09.000Z","searchable_text":"Adler{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized in Leadership Academy Class of 2012\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, Young Lawyers Division\"}{{ FIELD }}Elizabeth D. Adler is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Data, Privacy \u0026amp; Security practice based in Atlanta GA. Elizabeth advises clients in responding to and managing data security incidents of all types and sizes, including crisis management and public relations efforts, investigations, notifications, and government inquiries. She also represents clients in privacy and data breach class action and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country, and has extensive experience successfully defending large, multi-district class action litigation arising out of some of the most prominent data security incidents. Elizabeth has prepared witnesses to testify before Congress and has briefed Congressional staffers on data breach issues. Law360 recognized her as a \"Rising Star\" in Privacy and Cybersecurity in 2019 (one of five attorneys named worldwide).\nElizabeth's representation of clients spans a variety of industries and regularly involve significant corporate risk and financial impact to global companies, are at the cutting-edge of U.S. and international law, and require innovative solutions to constantly evolving privacy and security issues. Clients consistently turn to Elizabeth as a key advisor to lead and manage the many workstreams that an organization faces during data security incidents, and her work includes extensive experience defending of some of the most prominent data security incidents in U.S. history, including Capital One and Equifax. Her defense of class actions includes defeating class claims alleging violations of data protection and privacy laws, violations of state and federal consumer protection statutes, fraud, and breaches of contract. \nA regular author and speaker on data privacy and cybersecurity, Elizabeth also serves as the Editor for the Firm’s publication, the King \u0026amp; Spalding Data, Privacy \u0026amp; Security Practice Report.\nPrior to joining the firm, Elizabeth served as a law clerk for United States District Judge Kristi K. DuBose in the Southern District of Alabama in Mobile, Alabama.\nElizabeth is active in the Atlanta community and serves on the Board of Directors of The Atlanta Opera. Partner Recognized in Leadership Academy Class of 2012 State Bar of Georgia, Young Lawyers Division The University of Alabama The University of Alabama School of Law Mercer University Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia American Bar Association International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Barrister, Lamar American Inn of Court Atlanta Bar Association, Litigation Section Board of Directors Member, Lawyers Club of Atlanta Member, State Bar of Georgia Law Clerk, Honorable Kristi K. DuBose, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama","searchable_name":"Elizabeth D. Adler","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447781,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4211,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJoe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35\u0026nbsp;trials and arbitrations.\u0026nbsp; He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.\u0026nbsp; A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).\u0026nbsp; He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (\u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (\u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e), in addition to other honors received from\u0026nbsp;the \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe Recorder\u003c/em\u003e, and other publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"joseph-akrotirianakis","email":"jakro@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s decision \u0026ldquo;would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute\u0026rsquo;s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients\u0026rsquo; favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company\u0026rsquo;s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing \u0026ldquo;compounded\u0026rdquo; drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of North America\u0026rsquo;s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business \u0026ldquo;divorce\u0026rdquo; from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents the U.S. West Coast\u0026rsquo;s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the \u0026ldquo;West Coast Port Slowdown.\u0026rdquo; After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be \u0026ldquo;constructively\u0026rdquo; closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company\u0026rsquo;s former employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented California\u0026rsquo;s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the world\u0026rsquo;s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":125,"guid":"125.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1205,"guid":"1205.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Akrotirianakis","nick_name":"Joe","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"1998 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Joseph","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2895,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude \u0026 Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1998-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.” - Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025"},{"title":"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential outcomes.” -  Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025"},{"title":"Legal Lion of the Week","detail":"Law360, April 10, 2026"},{"title":"Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\"","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024"},{"title":"Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally)","detail":"Daily Journal, 2024"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present"},{"title":"Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes","detail":"Legal 500 U.S., 2022 - present"},{"title":"Litigation Star (National)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"California Litigation Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\"","detail":"Financial Times, 2022"},{"title":"Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm","detail":"National Law Journal, 2022"},{"title":"Named a \"Trailblazer: West\"","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Named a \"California Trailblazer\"","detail":"The Recorder, 2020"},{"title":"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Lawyers","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017"},{"title":"Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry","detail":"Law360, 2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-akrotirianakis-78bb3269/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJoe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35\u0026nbsp;trials and arbitrations.\u0026nbsp; He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.\u0026nbsp; A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).\u0026nbsp; He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (\u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (\u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e), in addition to other honors received from\u0026nbsp;the \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe Recorder\u003c/em\u003e, and other publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s decision \u0026ldquo;would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute\u0026rsquo;s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients\u0026rsquo; favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company\u0026rsquo;s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing \u0026ldquo;compounded\u0026rdquo; drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of North America\u0026rsquo;s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business \u0026ldquo;divorce\u0026rdquo; from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents the U.S. West Coast\u0026rsquo;s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the \u0026ldquo;West Coast Port Slowdown.\u0026rdquo; After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be \u0026ldquo;constructively\u0026rdquo; closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company\u0026rsquo;s former employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented California\u0026rsquo;s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the world\u0026rsquo;s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.” - Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025"},{"title":"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential outcomes.” -  Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025"},{"title":"Legal Lion of the Week","detail":"Law360, April 10, 2026"},{"title":"Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\"","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024"},{"title":"Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally)","detail":"Daily Journal, 2024"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present"},{"title":"Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes","detail":"Legal 500 U.S., 2022 - present"},{"title":"Litigation Star (National)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"California Litigation Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\"","detail":"Financial Times, 2022"},{"title":"Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm","detail":"National Law Journal, 2022"},{"title":"Named a \"Trailblazer: West\"","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Named a \"California Trailblazer\"","detail":"The Recorder, 2020"},{"title":"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Lawyers","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017"},{"title":"Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry","detail":"Law360, 2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11424}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-22T19:10:25.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-22T19:10:25.000Z","searchable_text":"Akrotirianakis{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.” - Litigation: General Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential outcomes.” -  Litigation: General Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal Lion of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, April 10, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among Los Angeles' \\\"Top 100 Lawyers\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among 50 \\\"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\\\" (nationally)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed as \\\"Recommended\\\" in category of General Commercial Disputes\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 U.S., 2022 - present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Star (National)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"California Litigation Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Shortlisted as an \\\"Innovative Practitioner\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Financial Times, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as the only \\\"Plaintiff Trailblazer\\\" at a large law firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a \\\"Trailblazer: West\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a \\\"California Trailblazer\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Recorder, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among \\\"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\\\" across all practice areas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 \\\"MVP,\\\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}As lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California’s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.{{ FIELD }}As trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.{{ FIELD }}As lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB’s decision “would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.”{{ FIELD }}As co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute’s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients’ favor.{{ FIELD }}As lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney’s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.{{ FIELD }}As lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation’s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney’s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.{{ FIELD }}Represent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company’s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.{{ FIELD }}Represented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing “compounded” drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.{{ FIELD }}The action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\nRepresented one of North America’s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s unlawful business practices.\nAs lead counsel, represented one of the world’s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business “divorce” from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world’s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\nRepresents the U.S. West Coast’s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\nAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\nDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the “West Coast Port Slowdown.” After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be “constructively” closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\nPersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\nPersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\nRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\nServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\nRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\nRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company’s former employees.\nRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\nRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\nRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented California’s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented the world’s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.{{ FIELD }}Joe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.  He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35 trials and arbitrations.  He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.  Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.  A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career. \nMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.  Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).  He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (Daily Journal), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (Legal 500 U.S., 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (Benchmark Litigation, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (Financial Times, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (Law360), in addition to other honors received from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, The Recorder, and other publications.\nBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.  Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.  \n  Partner “He is very thorough and very well experienced.” - Litigation: General Commercial Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025 “Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential outcomes.” -  Litigation: General Commercial Chambers Guide to the USA, California, 2025 Legal Lion of the Week Law360, April 10, 2026 Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024 Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally) Daily Journal, 2024 The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation  The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes Legal 500 U.S., 2022 - present Litigation Star (National) Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present California Litigation Star Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\" Financial Times, 2022 Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm National Law Journal, 2022 Named a \"Trailblazer: West\" The American Lawyer, 2021 Named a \"California Trailblazer\" The Recorder, 2020 Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Lawyers Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020 Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas Super Lawyers, 2017 Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry Law360, 2016 Whittier College Whittier Law School Loyola Law School Loyola Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida California Law Clerk, Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit As lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California’s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial. As trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia. As lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB’s decision “would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.” As co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute’s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients’ favor. As lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney’s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut. As lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation’s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial. Represented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney’s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest. Represent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company’s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity. Represented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing “compounded” drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law. The action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\nRepresented one of North America’s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s unlawful business practices.\nAs lead counsel, represented one of the world’s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business “divorce” from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world’s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\nRepresents the U.S. West Coast’s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\nAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\nDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the “West Coast Port Slowdown.” After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be “constructively” closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\nPersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\nPersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client’s favor. Persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\nRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\nServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\nRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\nRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company’s former employees.\nRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\nRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\nRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented California’s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented the world’s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.","searchable_name":"Joseph Akrotirianakis (Joe)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445566,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":854,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCarolyn Alford\u0026nbsp;represents\u0026nbsp;financial institutions, funds, private equity sponsors,\u0026nbsp;issuers and corporate borrowers on a wide range of complex and innovative finance matters including acquisition, unitranche, first lien/second lien and mezzanine financings, leveraged and investment-grade syndicated credit facilities, private placements of notes and\u0026nbsp;asset-based lending.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile her industry experience is broad, she has an extensive track record in financing matters for\u0026nbsp;healthcare, pharma, energy, telecom and media sectors.\u0026nbsp;Notably, Carolyn co-leads King \u0026amp; Spalding's Finance \u0026amp; Restructuring practice and serves on the firm's\u0026nbsp;managing Policy Committee. Carolyn has been recognized by her clients as \u0026ldquo;an extremely impressive attorney\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;stand out for her professionalism, expertise and dedication.\u0026rdquo; Additionally, Chambers USA has noted Carolyn as Band 1 for her Finance practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarolyn also has experience structuring programmatic lending platforms and is frequently called upon by clients to advise on structuring innovative financial products and to represent their interests in workouts and out of court restructurings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarolyn is a fellow and past-President\u0026nbsp;of the American College of Investment Counsel, where she served on the Board of Trustees for eight years, and the American College of Commercial Finance Lawyers, where she has\u0026nbsp;served\u0026nbsp;on the Nominating Committee. As a passionate proponent for diversity, Carolyn is proud to serve on the Board of the Atlanta Women's Foundation. Carolyn also has the honor of serving as a board member of the Children's Hospital of Atlanta Foundation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"carolyn-alford","email":"czalford@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":13}]},"expertise":[{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":29,"guid":"29.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":82,"guid":"82.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":734,"guid":"734.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":716,"guid":"716.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1148,"guid":"1148.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1165,"guid":"1165.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1261,"guid":"1261.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":26,"guid":"26.capabilities","index":18,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":20,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Alford","nick_name":"Carolyn","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Carolyn","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"Zander","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to Bank Lenders (Nationwide)","detail":"LEGAL500, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to direct lenders / private credit (Nationwide) ","detail":"LEGAL500, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026 Finance (New York)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026 Finance (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA,2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Individually Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, ABS - Band 2 (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2022"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, Whole Business - Band 1 (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2022"},{"title":"Individually Ranked in Band 1 for Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Banking \u0026 Finance - Band 1 (Georgia) and Band 5 (Nationwide) ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Highly Regarded Practitioner in Banking ","detail":"IFLR 1000 US, 2021"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Commercial Lending - Advice to Borrowers and Lenders","detail":"LEGAL 500 US, 2022"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/carolynalford/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCarolyn Alford\u0026nbsp;represents\u0026nbsp;financial institutions, funds, private equity sponsors,\u0026nbsp;issuers and corporate borrowers on a wide range of complex and innovative finance matters including acquisition, unitranche, first lien/second lien and mezzanine financings, leveraged and investment-grade syndicated credit facilities, private placements of notes and\u0026nbsp;asset-based lending.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile her industry experience is broad, she has an extensive track record in financing matters for\u0026nbsp;healthcare, pharma, energy, telecom and media sectors.\u0026nbsp;Notably, Carolyn co-leads King \u0026amp; Spalding's Finance \u0026amp; Restructuring practice and serves on the firm's\u0026nbsp;managing Policy Committee. Carolyn has been recognized by her clients as \u0026ldquo;an extremely impressive attorney\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;stand out for her professionalism, expertise and dedication.\u0026rdquo; Additionally, Chambers USA has noted Carolyn as Band 1 for her Finance practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarolyn also has experience structuring programmatic lending platforms and is frequently called upon by clients to advise on structuring innovative financial products and to represent their interests in workouts and out of court restructurings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarolyn is a fellow and past-President\u0026nbsp;of the American College of Investment Counsel, where she served on the Board of Trustees for eight years, and the American College of Commercial Finance Lawyers, where she has\u0026nbsp;served\u0026nbsp;on the Nominating Committee. As a passionate proponent for diversity, Carolyn is proud to serve on the Board of the Atlanta Women's Foundation. Carolyn also has the honor of serving as a board member of the Children's Hospital of Atlanta Foundation.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to Bank Lenders (Nationwide)","detail":"LEGAL500, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to direct lenders / private credit (Nationwide) ","detail":"LEGAL500, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026 Finance (New York)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026 Finance (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA,2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Individually Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, ABS - Band 2 (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2022"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, Whole Business - Band 1 (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2022"},{"title":"Individually Ranked in Band 1 for Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Banking \u0026 Finance - Band 1 (Georgia) and Band 5 (Nationwide) ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Highly Regarded Practitioner in Banking ","detail":"IFLR 1000 US, 2021"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Commercial Lending - Advice to Borrowers and Lenders","detail":"LEGAL 500 US, 2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10086}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-02-04T14:34:26.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-04T14:34:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Alford{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to Bank Lenders (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL500, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to direct lenders / private credit (Nationwide) \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL500, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026amp; Finance (New York)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA,2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Individually Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, ABS - Band 2 (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, Whole Business - Band 1 (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Individually Ranked in Band 1 for Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked: Banking \u0026amp; Finance - Band 1 (Georgia) and Band 5 (Nationwide) \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Highly Regarded Practitioner in Banking \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IFLR 1000 US, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked: Commercial Lending - Advice to Borrowers and Lenders\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL 500 US, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Carolyn Alford represents financial institutions, funds, private equity sponsors, issuers and corporate borrowers on a wide range of complex and innovative finance matters including acquisition, unitranche, first lien/second lien and mezzanine financings, leveraged and investment-grade syndicated credit facilities, private placements of notes and asset-based lending.\nWhile her industry experience is broad, she has an extensive track record in financing matters for healthcare, pharma, energy, telecom and media sectors. Notably, Carolyn co-leads King \u0026amp; Spalding's Finance \u0026amp; Restructuring practice and serves on the firm's managing Policy Committee. Carolyn has been recognized by her clients as “an extremely impressive attorney” and “stand out for her professionalism, expertise and dedication.” Additionally, Chambers USA has noted Carolyn as Band 1 for her Finance practice.\nCarolyn also has experience structuring programmatic lending platforms and is frequently called upon by clients to advise on structuring innovative financial products and to represent their interests in workouts and out of court restructurings.\nCarolyn is a fellow and past-President of the American College of Investment Counsel, where she served on the Board of Trustees for eight years, and the American College of Commercial Finance Lawyers, where she has served on the Nominating Committee. As a passionate proponent for diversity, Carolyn is proud to serve on the Board of the Atlanta Women's Foundation. Carolyn also has the honor of serving as a board member of the Children's Hospital of Atlanta Foundation. Carolyn Zander Alford Partner Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to Bank Lenders (Nationwide) LEGAL500, 2025 Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to direct lenders / private credit (Nationwide)  LEGAL500, 2025 Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026amp; Finance (New York) CHAMBERS USA, 2025 Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Nationwide) CHAMBERS USA,2025 Practice Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia) CHAMBERS USA, 2025 Individually Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia) CHAMBERS USA, 2025 Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, ABS - Band 2 (Nationwide) CHAMBERS USA, 2022 Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, Whole Business - Band 1 (Nationwide) CHAMBERS USA, 2022 Individually Ranked in Band 1 for Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia) Chambers USA, 2022 Practice Ranked: Banking \u0026amp; Finance - Band 1 (Georgia) and Band 5 (Nationwide)  Chambers USA, 2022 Highly Regarded Practitioner in Banking  IFLR 1000 US, 2021 Practice Ranked: Commercial Lending - Advice to Borrowers and Lenders LEGAL 500 US, 2022 Duke University Duke University School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School Georgia New York State Bar of Georgia","searchable_name":"Carolyn Zander Alford","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446196,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6879,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRecognized by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e for Antitrust \u0026ndash; New York for more than a decade, and perennially listed in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s Who\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal of Competition Lawyers in New York and other similar publications, clients turn to Olivier for antitrust counseling when it matters most for their company. Olivier focuses primarily on antitrust counseling for \u0026ldquo;bet the company\u0026rdquo; transactional matters, as well as high-stakes antitrust litigation and government investigations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier has extensive experience representing merging parties, or merger opponents, in transactions raising significant antitrust scrutiny before U.S. Antitrust agencies as well as foreign competition authorities.\u0026nbsp; Olivier has successfully obtained merger clearances in highly contested transactions, and successfully represented merger opponents in some of the most high-profile abandoned transactions and joint ventures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier often provides \u0026ldquo;one-stop-shop\u0026rdquo; counseling on international antitrust questions requiring a bespoke analysis globally. Olivier's practice also includes civil and criminal antitrust enforcement matters and antitrust audit counseling.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier's work has covered a broad range of industries, including financial institutions, telecommunications, video distribution, satellite radio, recorded music and music publishing, fixed satellites, oil and gas, paper and forestry products, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, healthcare, food products and food service, bread, spirits, beer, vitamins, textiles, chemicals, fertilizers, sports goods, airlines, automotive and automotive parts, semiconductors, media buying, and advertising.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"olivier-antoine","email":"oantoine@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative M\u0026amp;A and Joint Venture Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent DIRECTV in many transactions including the proposed acquisition of the DISH video distribution business from EchoStar, and Standard General\u0026rsquo;s abandoned acquisition of TEGNA, as well as Disney, Fox, and Warner Brother Discovery\u0026rsquo;s abandoned \u0026ldquo;Venu\u0026rdquo; streaming Joint Venture, and the proposed Nexstar/TEGNA transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAT\u0026amp;T Inc. in many transactions including its recent $5.75 billion acquisition of Lumen Technologies\u0026rsquo; Mass Markets Fiber-to-the-home business, and its recent acquisition of wireless spectrum licenses from EchoStar for $23 billion, the $43 billion spin off Warner Media to Discovery, the $7.8 billion sale of an interest in DIRECTV to TPG, the $1.175 billion sale of the Crunchyroll business to Sony, the $108.7 billion acquisition of Time Warner Inc., its $67 billion acquisition of DIRECTV, its $1.19 billion acquisition of Leap Wireless, its $944 million acquisition of Centennial Communications, and its attempted $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSiemens AG in many transactions including the $1.3 billion sale of its Healthcare IT business to Cerner, the sale of its microbiology business to Danaher, and its global collaboration with Varian Medical Systems, and Siemens Healthineers in its $1.1 billion acquisition of Corindus Vascular Robotics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA third-party foodservice divestiture acquirer in connection with U.S. Foods\u0026rsquo;s $1.8 billion acquisition of Service Group of America, Inc. and several other matters including Sysco\u0026rsquo;s proposed acquisition of U.S. Foods.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUnited Technologies in connection with its $30 billion acquisition of Rockwell Collins, and its $15.5 billion acquisition of Goodrich.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTransCanada in its $13 billion acquisition of Columbia Pipeline Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlcoa in its $2.85 billion acquisition of Firth Rixson.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGoldman Sachs \u0026amp; Co. in its spinoff of the REDI business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFlowers Foods in its $355 million acquisition of the Hostess bread assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuPont in the $4.9 billion sale of DuPont Paint and Coating business to the Carlyle Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVeolia in the $1.9 billion sale of its waste assets to Highstar Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReed Elsevier PLC in its $4.1 billion acquisition of ChoicePoint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius Satellite Radio in its $13 billion merger with XM Satellite Radio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTravelport in its $1.4 billion acquisition of Worldspan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSmithfield Foods in its $810 million acquisition of Premium Standard Foods, and its $367 million acquisition of Farmland Foods.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePanAmSat in its $3.2 billion sale to Intelsat.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdidas AG in its $3.8 billion acquisition of Reebok.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVNU in the attempted $7 billion acquisition of IMS Health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCelanese before the European Commission in its $492 million acquisition of Acetex. (Phase II investigation)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGrey Global in its $1.7 billion sale to WPP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCSL in its $925 million acquisition of the Aventis Behring plasma business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVivendi Universal in its $8.1 billion sale of the Seagram Spirits and Wine business to Diageo and Pernod Ricard.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTotal before the European Commission in its \u0026euro;50 billion acquisition of Elf. (Phase II investigation)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Litigation Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDIRECTV LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e, No 1:2023cv02221 \u0026ndash; Represent DIRECTV in antitrust litigation against Nexstar Media Group, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFuboTV Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e1:24-cv-01363-MMG (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented DIRECTV in connection with the proposed \u0026ldquo;Venu\u0026rdquo; streaming joint venture by Disney, Fox and Warner Brothers Discovery. The parties eventually abandoned the joint venture following opposition from non-parties EchoStar and DIRECTV.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState of New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eNo 1:19-cv-05434 (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in connection with the New York Attorney General et al. challenge of T-Mobile USA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $56 billion acquisition of Sprint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 3.09cv58 (E.D.VA) \u0026ndash; Represented E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in trade secret infringement litigation against Kolon Industries, Inc., and related monopolization counterclaim (ED Va). DuPont won a $919.9 million verdict, and the antitrust counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, MDL-1715 (E.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented a European airline in defending class action claims that air cargo rates were fixed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06 MD 1780 (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented Warner Music Group in connection with DOJ and NYAG investigations regarding the pricing of digital music and in class action claims filed against music companies alleging collusion in digital music pricing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Methyl-Methacrylate Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, MDL-1768 (E.D. Pa.) \u0026ndash; Represented Lucite Inc. in class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of methyl-methacrylate (MMA) and polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(MDL No. 1631, D. Conn.) \u0026ndash; Represented a major pulp and paper producer in a nationwide antitrust action alleging an unlawful conspiracy to fix the price of publication paper.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3225}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1220,"guid":"1220.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Antoine","nick_name":"Olivier","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Olivier","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":722,"meta":{"degree":"LL.M.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1999-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"N.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Global Competition Review: GCR 100","detail":"2013-2025"},{"title":"Chambers USA: Antitrust – New York","detail":"2013 - 2024"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/oantoine/","seodescription":"Olivier is a partner","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRecognized by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e for Antitrust \u0026ndash; New York for more than a decade, and perennially listed in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s Who\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal of Competition Lawyers in New York and other similar publications, clients turn to Olivier for antitrust counseling when it matters most for their company. Olivier focuses primarily on antitrust counseling for \u0026ldquo;bet the company\u0026rdquo; transactional matters, as well as high-stakes antitrust litigation and government investigations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier has extensive experience representing merging parties, or merger opponents, in transactions raising significant antitrust scrutiny before U.S. Antitrust agencies as well as foreign competition authorities.\u0026nbsp; Olivier has successfully obtained merger clearances in highly contested transactions, and successfully represented merger opponents in some of the most high-profile abandoned transactions and joint ventures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier often provides \u0026ldquo;one-stop-shop\u0026rdquo; counseling on international antitrust questions requiring a bespoke analysis globally. Olivier's practice also includes civil and criminal antitrust enforcement matters and antitrust audit counseling.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier's work has covered a broad range of industries, including financial institutions, telecommunications, video distribution, satellite radio, recorded music and music publishing, fixed satellites, oil and gas, paper and forestry products, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, healthcare, food products and food service, bread, spirits, beer, vitamins, textiles, chemicals, fertilizers, sports goods, airlines, automotive and automotive parts, semiconductors, media buying, and advertising.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative M\u0026amp;A and Joint Venture Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent DIRECTV in many transactions including the proposed acquisition of the DISH video distribution business from EchoStar, and Standard General\u0026rsquo;s abandoned acquisition of TEGNA, as well as Disney, Fox, and Warner Brother Discovery\u0026rsquo;s abandoned \u0026ldquo;Venu\u0026rdquo; streaming Joint Venture, and the proposed Nexstar/TEGNA transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAT\u0026amp;T Inc. in many transactions including its recent $5.75 billion acquisition of Lumen Technologies\u0026rsquo; Mass Markets Fiber-to-the-home business, and its recent acquisition of wireless spectrum licenses from EchoStar for $23 billion, the $43 billion spin off Warner Media to Discovery, the $7.8 billion sale of an interest in DIRECTV to TPG, the $1.175 billion sale of the Crunchyroll business to Sony, the $108.7 billion acquisition of Time Warner Inc., its $67 billion acquisition of DIRECTV, its $1.19 billion acquisition of Leap Wireless, its $944 million acquisition of Centennial Communications, and its attempted $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSiemens AG in many transactions including the $1.3 billion sale of its Healthcare IT business to Cerner, the sale of its microbiology business to Danaher, and its global collaboration with Varian Medical Systems, and Siemens Healthineers in its $1.1 billion acquisition of Corindus Vascular Robotics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA third-party foodservice divestiture acquirer in connection with U.S. Foods\u0026rsquo;s $1.8 billion acquisition of Service Group of America, Inc. and several other matters including Sysco\u0026rsquo;s proposed acquisition of U.S. Foods.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUnited Technologies in connection with its $30 billion acquisition of Rockwell Collins, and its $15.5 billion acquisition of Goodrich.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTransCanada in its $13 billion acquisition of Columbia Pipeline Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlcoa in its $2.85 billion acquisition of Firth Rixson.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGoldman Sachs \u0026amp; Co. in its spinoff of the REDI business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFlowers Foods in its $355 million acquisition of the Hostess bread assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuPont in the $4.9 billion sale of DuPont Paint and Coating business to the Carlyle Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVeolia in the $1.9 billion sale of its waste assets to Highstar Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReed Elsevier PLC in its $4.1 billion acquisition of ChoicePoint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius Satellite Radio in its $13 billion merger with XM Satellite Radio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTravelport in its $1.4 billion acquisition of Worldspan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSmithfield Foods in its $810 million acquisition of Premium Standard Foods, and its $367 million acquisition of Farmland Foods.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePanAmSat in its $3.2 billion sale to Intelsat.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdidas AG in its $3.8 billion acquisition of Reebok.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVNU in the attempted $7 billion acquisition of IMS Health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCelanese before the European Commission in its $492 million acquisition of Acetex. (Phase II investigation)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGrey Global in its $1.7 billion sale to WPP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCSL in its $925 million acquisition of the Aventis Behring plasma business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVivendi Universal in its $8.1 billion sale of the Seagram Spirits and Wine business to Diageo and Pernod Ricard.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTotal before the European Commission in its \u0026euro;50 billion acquisition of Elf. (Phase II investigation)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Litigation Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDIRECTV LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e, No 1:2023cv02221 \u0026ndash; Represent DIRECTV in antitrust litigation against Nexstar Media Group, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFuboTV Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e1:24-cv-01363-MMG (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented DIRECTV in connection with the proposed \u0026ldquo;Venu\u0026rdquo; streaming joint venture by Disney, Fox and Warner Brothers Discovery. The parties eventually abandoned the joint venture following opposition from non-parties EchoStar and DIRECTV.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState of New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eNo 1:19-cv-05434 (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in connection with the New York Attorney General et al. challenge of T-Mobile USA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $56 billion acquisition of Sprint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 3.09cv58 (E.D.VA) \u0026ndash; Represented E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in trade secret infringement litigation against Kolon Industries, Inc., and related monopolization counterclaim (ED Va). DuPont won a $919.9 million verdict, and the antitrust counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, MDL-1715 (E.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented a European airline in defending class action claims that air cargo rates were fixed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06 MD 1780 (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented Warner Music Group in connection with DOJ and NYAG investigations regarding the pricing of digital music and in class action claims filed against music companies alleging collusion in digital music pricing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Methyl-Methacrylate Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, MDL-1768 (E.D. Pa.) \u0026ndash; Represented Lucite Inc. in class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of methyl-methacrylate (MMA) and polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(MDL No. 1631, D. Conn.) \u0026ndash; Represented a major pulp and paper producer in a nationwide antitrust action alleging an unlawful conspiracy to fix the price of publication paper.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Global Competition Review: GCR 100","detail":"2013-2025"},{"title":"Chambers USA: Antitrust – New York","detail":"2013 - 2024"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12282}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-27T14:37:17.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-27T14:37:17.000Z","searchable_text":"Antoine{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Global Competition Review: GCR 100\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA: Antitrust – New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013 - 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}Representative M\u0026amp;A and Joint Venture Experience\nRepresent DIRECTV in many transactions including the proposed acquisition of the DISH video distribution business from EchoStar, and Standard General’s abandoned acquisition of TEGNA, as well as Disney, Fox, and Warner Brother Discovery’s abandoned “Venu” streaming Joint Venture, and the proposed Nexstar/TEGNA transaction.{{ FIELD }}AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in many transactions including its recent $5.75 billion acquisition of Lumen Technologies’ Mass Markets Fiber-to-the-home business, and its recent acquisition of wireless spectrum licenses from EchoStar for $23 billion, the $43 billion spin off Warner Media to Discovery, the $7.8 billion sale of an interest in DIRECTV to TPG, the $1.175 billion sale of the Crunchyroll business to Sony, the $108.7 billion acquisition of Time Warner Inc., its $67 billion acquisition of DIRECTV, its $1.19 billion acquisition of Leap Wireless, its $944 million acquisition of Centennial Communications, and its attempted $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc.{{ FIELD }}Siemens AG in many transactions including the $1.3 billion sale of its Healthcare IT business to Cerner, the sale of its microbiology business to Danaher, and its global collaboration with Varian Medical Systems, and Siemens Healthineers in its $1.1 billion acquisition of Corindus Vascular Robotics.{{ FIELD }}A third-party foodservice divestiture acquirer in connection with U.S. Foods’s $1.8 billion acquisition of Service Group of America, Inc. and several other matters including Sysco’s proposed acquisition of U.S. Foods.{{ FIELD }}United Technologies in connection with its $30 billion acquisition of Rockwell Collins, and its $15.5 billion acquisition of Goodrich.{{ FIELD }}TransCanada in its $13 billion acquisition of Columbia Pipeline Group.{{ FIELD }}Alcoa in its $2.85 billion acquisition of Firth Rixson.{{ FIELD }}Goldman Sachs \u0026amp; Co. in its spinoff of the REDI business.{{ FIELD }}Flowers Foods in its $355 million acquisition of the Hostess bread assets.{{ FIELD }}DuPont in the $4.9 billion sale of DuPont Paint and Coating business to the Carlyle Group.{{ FIELD }}Veolia in the $1.9 billion sale of its waste assets to Highstar Capital.{{ FIELD }}Reed Elsevier PLC in its $4.1 billion acquisition of ChoicePoint.{{ FIELD }}Sirius Satellite Radio in its $13 billion merger with XM Satellite Radio.{{ FIELD }}Travelport in its $1.4 billion acquisition of Worldspan.{{ FIELD }}Smithfield Foods in its $810 million acquisition of Premium Standard Foods, and its $367 million acquisition of Farmland Foods.{{ FIELD }}PanAmSat in its $3.2 billion sale to Intelsat.{{ FIELD }}Adidas AG in its $3.8 billion acquisition of Reebok.{{ FIELD }}VNU in the attempted $7 billion acquisition of IMS Health.{{ FIELD }}Celanese before the European Commission in its $492 million acquisition of Acetex. (Phase II investigation){{ FIELD }}Grey Global in its $1.7 billion sale to WPP.{{ FIELD }}CSL in its $925 million acquisition of the Aventis Behring plasma business.{{ FIELD }}Vivendi Universal in its $8.1 billion sale of the Seagram Spirits and Wine business to Diageo and Pernod Ricard.{{ FIELD }}Total before the European Commission in its €50 billion acquisition of Elf. (Phase II investigation){{ FIELD }}Representative Litigation Experience\nDIRECTV LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. et al, No 1:2023cv02221 – Represent DIRECTV in antitrust litigation against Nexstar Media Group, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcast.{{ FIELD }}FuboTV Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al, 1:24-cv-01363-MMG (S.D.N.Y) – Represented DIRECTV in connection with the proposed “Venu” streaming joint venture by Disney, Fox and Warner Brothers Discovery. The parties eventually abandoned the joint venture following opposition from non-parties EchoStar and DIRECTV.{{ FIELD }}State of New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al, No 1:19-cv-05434 (S.D.N.Y) – Represented AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in connection with the New York Attorney General et al. challenge of T-Mobile USA’s proposed $56 billion acquisition of Sprint.{{ FIELD }}E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., No. 3.09cv58 (E.D.VA) – Represented E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in trade secret infringement litigation against Kolon Industries, Inc., and related monopolization counterclaim (ED Va). DuPont won a $919.9 million verdict, and the antitrust counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice.{{ FIELD }}In re Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1715 (E.D.N.Y.) – Represented a European airline in defending class action claims that air cargo rates were fixed.{{ FIELD }}In re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, No. 06 MD 1780 (S.D.N.Y) – Represented Warner Music Group in connection with DOJ and NYAG investigations regarding the pricing of digital music and in class action claims filed against music companies alleging collusion in digital music pricing.{{ FIELD }}In re Methyl-Methacrylate Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1768 (E.D. Pa.) – Represented Lucite Inc. in class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of methyl-methacrylate (MMA) and polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA).{{ FIELD }}In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1631, D. Conn.) – Represented a major pulp and paper producer in a nationwide antitrust action alleging an unlawful conspiracy to fix the price of publication paper.{{ FIELD }}Recognized by Chambers USA for Antitrust – New York for more than a decade, and perennially listed in Global Competition Review’s Who’s Who Legal of Competition Lawyers in New York and other similar publications, clients turn to Olivier for antitrust counseling when it matters most for their company. Olivier focuses primarily on antitrust counseling for “bet the company” transactional matters, as well as high-stakes antitrust litigation and government investigations.\nOlivier has extensive experience representing merging parties, or merger opponents, in transactions raising significant antitrust scrutiny before U.S. Antitrust agencies as well as foreign competition authorities.  Olivier has successfully obtained merger clearances in highly contested transactions, and successfully represented merger opponents in some of the most high-profile abandoned transactions and joint ventures.\nOlivier often provides “one-stop-shop” counseling on international antitrust questions requiring a bespoke analysis globally. Olivier's practice also includes civil and criminal antitrust enforcement matters and antitrust audit counseling.\nOlivier's work has covered a broad range of industries, including financial institutions, telecommunications, video distribution, satellite radio, recorded music and music publishing, fixed satellites, oil and gas, paper and forestry products, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, healthcare, food products and food service, bread, spirits, beer, vitamins, textiles, chemicals, fertilizers, sports goods, airlines, automotive and automotive parts, semiconductors, media buying, and advertising. Olivier Antoine lawyer Partner Global Competition Review: GCR 100 2013-2025 Chambers USA: Antitrust – New York 2013 - 2024 University of Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law University of Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne  New York New York State Bar Association, Chair of the International Antitrust and Competition Law Committee American Bar Association, Member of the International Antitrust Law Committee Steering Group Representative M\u0026amp;A and Joint Venture Experience\nRepresent DIRECTV in many transactions including the proposed acquisition of the DISH video distribution business from EchoStar, and Standard General’s abandoned acquisition of TEGNA, as well as Disney, Fox, and Warner Brother Discovery’s abandoned “Venu” streaming Joint Venture, and the proposed Nexstar/TEGNA transaction. AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in many transactions including its recent $5.75 billion acquisition of Lumen Technologies’ Mass Markets Fiber-to-the-home business, and its recent acquisition of wireless spectrum licenses from EchoStar for $23 billion, the $43 billion spin off Warner Media to Discovery, the $7.8 billion sale of an interest in DIRECTV to TPG, the $1.175 billion sale of the Crunchyroll business to Sony, the $108.7 billion acquisition of Time Warner Inc., its $67 billion acquisition of DIRECTV, its $1.19 billion acquisition of Leap Wireless, its $944 million acquisition of Centennial Communications, and its attempted $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc. Siemens AG in many transactions including the $1.3 billion sale of its Healthcare IT business to Cerner, the sale of its microbiology business to Danaher, and its global collaboration with Varian Medical Systems, and Siemens Healthineers in its $1.1 billion acquisition of Corindus Vascular Robotics. A third-party foodservice divestiture acquirer in connection with U.S. Foods’s $1.8 billion acquisition of Service Group of America, Inc. and several other matters including Sysco’s proposed acquisition of U.S. Foods. United Technologies in connection with its $30 billion acquisition of Rockwell Collins, and its $15.5 billion acquisition of Goodrich. TransCanada in its $13 billion acquisition of Columbia Pipeline Group. Alcoa in its $2.85 billion acquisition of Firth Rixson. Goldman Sachs \u0026amp; Co. in its spinoff of the REDI business. Flowers Foods in its $355 million acquisition of the Hostess bread assets. DuPont in the $4.9 billion sale of DuPont Paint and Coating business to the Carlyle Group. Veolia in the $1.9 billion sale of its waste assets to Highstar Capital. Reed Elsevier PLC in its $4.1 billion acquisition of ChoicePoint. Sirius Satellite Radio in its $13 billion merger with XM Satellite Radio. Travelport in its $1.4 billion acquisition of Worldspan. Smithfield Foods in its $810 million acquisition of Premium Standard Foods, and its $367 million acquisition of Farmland Foods. PanAmSat in its $3.2 billion sale to Intelsat. Adidas AG in its $3.8 billion acquisition of Reebok. VNU in the attempted $7 billion acquisition of IMS Health. Celanese before the European Commission in its $492 million acquisition of Acetex. (Phase II investigation) Grey Global in its $1.7 billion sale to WPP. CSL in its $925 million acquisition of the Aventis Behring plasma business. Vivendi Universal in its $8.1 billion sale of the Seagram Spirits and Wine business to Diageo and Pernod Ricard. Total before the European Commission in its €50 billion acquisition of Elf. (Phase II investigation) Representative Litigation Experience\nDIRECTV LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. et al, No 1:2023cv02221 – Represent DIRECTV in antitrust litigation against Nexstar Media Group, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcast. FuboTV Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al, 1:24-cv-01363-MMG (S.D.N.Y) – Represented DIRECTV in connection with the proposed “Venu” streaming joint venture by Disney, Fox and Warner Brothers Discovery. The parties eventually abandoned the joint venture following opposition from non-parties EchoStar and DIRECTV. State of New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al, No 1:19-cv-05434 (S.D.N.Y) – Represented AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in connection with the New York Attorney General et al. challenge of T-Mobile USA’s proposed $56 billion acquisition of Sprint. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., No. 3.09cv58 (E.D.VA) – Represented E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in trade secret infringement litigation against Kolon Industries, Inc., and related monopolization counterclaim (ED Va). DuPont won a $919.9 million verdict, and the antitrust counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice. In re Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1715 (E.D.N.Y.) – Represented a European airline in defending class action claims that air cargo rates were fixed. In re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, No. 06 MD 1780 (S.D.N.Y) – Represented Warner Music Group in connection with DOJ and NYAG investigations regarding the pricing of digital music and in class action claims filed against music companies alleging collusion in digital music pricing. In re Methyl-Methacrylate Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1768 (E.D. Pa.) – Represented Lucite Inc. in class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of methyl-methacrylate (MMA) and polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA). In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1631, D. Conn.) – Represented a major pulp and paper producer in a nationwide antitrust action alleging an unlawful conspiracy to fix the price of publication paper.","searchable_name":"Olivier N. Antoine","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":437134,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-balser","email":"dbalser@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":18}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Balser","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"1987-1989"}],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11778}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Balser{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is top in class action litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"U.S. “Litigation Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Class Actions{{ FIELD }}Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.{{ FIELD }}Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.{{ FIELD }}Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.{{ FIELD }}Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.{{ FIELD }}Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.{{ FIELD }}Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.{{ FIELD }}Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.{{ FIELD }}Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.{{ FIELD }}Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes{{ FIELD }}Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets{{ FIELD }}Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.{{ FIELD }}Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.”{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.{{ FIELD }}David Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients’ most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation. \nRanked by Chambers USA as a “Star Individual” for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\n\n “He is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best.”\n“He has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation.”\n“He can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive.”\n“He is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met.”\n“He's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.”\n\nDavid’s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as Distinguished Leader by the Daily Report in 2022, which praised his “proven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.” He has also been named a “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation and honored as a BTI Client Service All-Star. David’s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges. \nDavid leads the firm’s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\n  David L Balser Partner Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT “His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.”  DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022 \"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\"  Chambers USA 2023 “He is top in class action litigation\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.” CHAMBERS USA 2023 Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection) THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022 “Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation Best Lawyers in America U.S. “Litigation Star”  Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present 2018 BTI Client Service All-Star BTI, 2018 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School Georgia Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Class Actions Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products. Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services. Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit. Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit. Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court. Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality. Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial. Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees. Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company. Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website. Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act. Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment. Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds. Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance. Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island. Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action. Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019. Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project. Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia. Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.” Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment. Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims. Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor. Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.","searchable_name":"David L. Balser","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442789,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5487,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eStephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client\u0026rsquo;s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is \u0026ldquo;[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.\u0026rdquo; In common with his colleagues, \u0026ldquo;he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective\u0026rdquo;; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the \u0026ldquo;[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers \u0026ldquo; by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"stephen-baskin","email":"sbaskin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (\u0026ldquo;TCL\u0026rdquo;). Case favorably settled for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCraig Alexander v. a major international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(GA: DeKalb Country State Court)\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client\u0026rsquo;s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton\u0026rsquo;s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (\u0026ldquo;GM\u0026rdquo;) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSoundView Innovations v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client\u0026rsquo;s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLighthouse Consulting Group, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright\u0026rsquo;s decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM\u0026rsquo;s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParallel Iron v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eand US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInnova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital, LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eStambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baskin","nick_name":"Steve","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Stephen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":345,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"A great client-oriented attorney\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked “Patent 1000”","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"title":"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”","detail":"Washingtonian Magazine"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eStephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client\u0026rsquo;s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is \u0026ldquo;[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.\u0026rdquo; In common with his colleagues, \u0026ldquo;he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective\u0026rdquo;; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the \u0026ldquo;[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers \u0026ldquo; by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (\u0026ldquo;TCL\u0026rdquo;). Case favorably settled for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCraig Alexander v. a major international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(GA: DeKalb Country State Court)\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client\u0026rsquo;s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton\u0026rsquo;s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (\u0026ldquo;GM\u0026rdquo;) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSoundView Innovations v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client\u0026rsquo;s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLighthouse Consulting Group, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright\u0026rsquo;s decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM\u0026rsquo;s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParallel Iron v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eand US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInnova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital, LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eStambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"A great client-oriented attorney\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked “Patent 1000”","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"title":"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”","detail":"Washingtonian Magazine"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6942}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:20.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:20.000Z","searchable_text":"Baskin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"A great client-oriented attorney\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked “Patent 1000”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Asset Management\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washingtonian Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc. (D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.{{ FIELD }}In the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (“TCL”). Case favorably settled for client.{{ FIELD }}Encore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.{{ FIELD }}Craig Alexander v. a major international airline (GA: DeKalb Country State Court). Representing a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client’s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.{{ FIELD }}Hand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al. (D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.{{ FIELD }}Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. (N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.{{ FIELD }}Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton’s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.{{ FIELD }}SunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc (N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.{{ FIELD }}Encore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Symbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline (N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.{{ FIELD }}Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.{{ FIELD }}Amtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al (International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities. Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.{{ FIELD }}SoundView Innovations v. a major international airline (District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client’s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.{{ FIELD }}Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC (WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright’s decision.{{ FIELD }}Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM’s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.{{ FIELD }}EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.{{ FIELD }}Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC (Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.{{ FIELD }}NCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al (Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.{{ FIELD }}Anuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.{{ FIELD }}St. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.{{ FIELD }}Symbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.{{ FIELD }}Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.{{ FIELD }}Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.{{ FIELD }}Parallel Iron v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Aeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways. Lead counsel representing a major international airline and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Walker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics, et al.) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet). Walker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Innova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom). InNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Autoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies. Autoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Cyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).{{ FIELD }}CyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types. Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Garnet Digital LLC Litigation. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC Litigation, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Leon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis). Stambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).{{ FIELD }}MacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Autoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone. Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).{{ FIELD }}A major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).{{ FIELD }}Stephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25 years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.\nSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client’s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality. \nSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is “[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.” In common with his colleagues, “he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective”; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the “[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers “ by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\nSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA. Partner \"A great client-oriented attorney\" Chambers USA \"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\" Chambers USA Ranked “Patent 1000” Intellectual Asset Management Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers” Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present Recognized as a “Best Lawyer” Washingtonian Magazine Ohio University  Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Virginia Chair of Executive Area Board at American Cancer Society Board of Directors at ThanksUSA The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc. (D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data. In the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (“TCL”). Case favorably settled for client. Encore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation. Craig Alexander v. a major international airline (GA: DeKalb Country State Court). Representing a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client’s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool. Hand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al. (D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. (N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton’s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y. SunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc (N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid. Encore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims. Symbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline (N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes. Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices. Amtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al (International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities. Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234. SoundView Innovations v. a major international airline (District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client’s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses. Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC (WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright’s decision. Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM’s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team. EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology. Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC (Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device. NCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al (Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC. Anuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages. St. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction. Symbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes. Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems. Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds. Parallel Iron v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013). Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013). Aeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways. Lead counsel representing a major international airline and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011). Walker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics, et al.) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet). Walker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011). Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013). Innova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom). InNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010). Autoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies. Autoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010). Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011). Cyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011). CyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011). Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types. Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010). Garnet Digital LLC Litigation. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC Litigation, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011). Leon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis). Stambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011). MacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011). Autoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone. Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012). A major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).","searchable_name":"Stephen E. Baskin (Steve)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442360,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":852,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"w-randall-bassett","email":"rbassett@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":5}]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bassett","nick_name":"Randy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"W. Randall","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/wrandallbassett/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":126,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5463}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","searchable_text":"Bassett{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.{{ FIELD }}Randy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.  Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.\nRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: Brown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences, Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and United Parcel Service, Inc.\nRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\nRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding’s office in Miami.  He serves as Managing Partner of the firm’s Miami office. W Randall Bassett Partner Best Lawyers in America 2010–2016 Chambers USA 2010–2015 Legal 500 2010–2016 The Citadel  University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia Hawaii American Bar Association Litigation Counsel of America American Bar Fellow State Bar of Georgia Lawyers Club of Atlanta Defense Research Institute State Bar of Florida Georgia Defense Lawyers Association International Association of Defense Counsel International Society of Barristers Product Liability Advisory Council Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas. Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.","searchable_name":"W. Randall Bassett (Randy)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446413,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":826,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"andrew-bayman","email":"abayman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":131}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bayman","nick_name":"Andy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Andrew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2442,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1989-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"T.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":719}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Bayman{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Distinguished Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBER USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing \\\"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named by The Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.{{ FIELD }}Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.{{ FIELD }}Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).{{ FIELD }}Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.{{ FIELD }}Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device.{{ FIELD }}Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.{{ FIELD }}Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan).{{ FIELD }}Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.{{ FIELD }}Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.{{ FIELD }}Andy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability, toxic tort, and other tort cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of “Innovator Liability,” the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck’s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax® and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.\nAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.  He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\nAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.  The American Lawyer recognized Andy as a “Litigator of the Week” for that victory.  In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy’s client’s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.  He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.  Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association’s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled “Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.”\nHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants’ counsel, that the plaintiffs’ general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.  At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.  After excluding the plaintiffs’ experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win. \nAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by Law360 and in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\nIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm’s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.  He served for five years as the Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding’s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally. Andrew T Bayman Partner Named Distinguished Leader DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024 Named Litigator of the Week THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024 “Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor” CHAMBERS USA Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star. Benchmark, 2019 Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP Law360 Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year” Best Lawyers, 2015 Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide) Chambers USA Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.”  CHAMBER USA Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\"  CHAMBERS USA “Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.” Chambers USA Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022 Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer” Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022 Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise”  Legal 500 An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.”  Legal 500 Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers Litigation Counsel of America, 2014 Named by The Best Lawyers in America 2006–2022 Miami University-Oxford  Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Federal Bar Association Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions. Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru. Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault. Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business. Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018. Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019). Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations. Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation. Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors. Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device. Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama. Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client. Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged. Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan). Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens. Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.","searchable_name":"Andrew T. Bayman (Andy)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427127,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6357,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatie Blaszak is a corporate attorney in our Mergers \u0026amp; Acquisitions and Private Equity practices.\u0026nbsp; Katie focuses her practice on advising clients on mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, complex commercial transactions, strategic partnerships, and other general corporate and business matters.\u0026nbsp; Katie has experience in a wide range of verticals, including manufacturing, distribution, telecommunications, mediate and technology sectors, having represented private equity firms and strategic clients in the paper, printing, power, industrials services, broadcast, cable, newspaper, digital media, technology, as well as automotive sectors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kathleen-blaszak","email":"kblaszak@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of a majority stake in Cox Media Group's television stations and its Dayton newspaper and radio stations to Apollo Global Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUSA Television\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its sale of 11 television stations to Allen Media Broadcasting, a unit of Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios, for $305 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge mobility company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the creation of mobility subscription service joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecable company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its investment in a fiber-optic network services provider.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge communications\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;company in its investment in and subsequent sale of such investment in a private tower and communications site company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with its acquisition of a residential gas distribution company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge media company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of its newspapers and related media assets in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge media company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of its newspapers and related media assets in Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebroadcast group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the acquisition of a television station in Huntsville, Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its sale of its managed infrastructure as service solution portfolio company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eautomotive solutions provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of aftermarket technology solutions company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge automotive solutions provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its investment and strategic alliance with an automotive inspections solutions company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUK based company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its investment in an ADSB air traffic surveillance service.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR1 RCM Inc. (NASDAQ: RCM)\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading provider of technology-driven solutions that transform the patient experience and financial performance of healthcare providers, in its acquisition of VisitPay, a leading digital payment solution provider.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its investment into Faze Clan, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of a fastener distribution company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaDa Holdings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its sale of the controlling interest of New Day Aluminum Holdings LLC to Concord Resources Limited.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Blaszak","nick_name":"Katie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kathleen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2484,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2009-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner for M\u0026A Middle Market ($500M-999M)","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/katie-blaszak-79b3b333/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatie Blaszak is a corporate attorney in our Mergers \u0026amp; Acquisitions and Private Equity practices.\u0026nbsp; Katie focuses her practice on advising clients on mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, complex commercial transactions, strategic partnerships, and other general corporate and business matters.\u0026nbsp; Katie has experience in a wide range of verticals, including manufacturing, distribution, telecommunications, mediate and technology sectors, having represented private equity firms and strategic clients in the paper, printing, power, industrials services, broadcast, cable, newspaper, digital media, technology, as well as automotive sectors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of a majority stake in Cox Media Group's television stations and its Dayton newspaper and radio stations to Apollo Global Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUSA Television\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its sale of 11 television stations to Allen Media Broadcasting, a unit of Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios, for $305 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge mobility company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the creation of mobility subscription service joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecable company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its investment in a fiber-optic network services provider.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge communications\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;company in its investment in and subsequent sale of such investment in a private tower and communications site company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with its acquisition of a residential gas distribution company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge media company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of its newspapers and related media assets in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge media company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of its newspapers and related media assets in Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebroadcast group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the acquisition of a television station in Huntsville, Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its sale of its managed infrastructure as service solution portfolio company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eautomotive solutions provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of aftermarket technology solutions company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elarge automotive solutions provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its investment and strategic alliance with an automotive inspections solutions company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUK based company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its investment in an ADSB air traffic surveillance service.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR1 RCM Inc. (NASDAQ: RCM)\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading provider of technology-driven solutions that transform the patient experience and financial performance of healthcare providers, in its acquisition of VisitPay, a leading digital payment solution provider.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its investment into Faze Clan, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of a fastener distribution company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaDa Holdings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its sale of the controlling interest of New Day Aluminum Holdings LLC to Concord Resources Limited.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Next Generation Partner for M\u0026A Middle Market ($500M-999M)","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9764}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:58:48.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:58:48.000Z","searchable_text":"Blaszak{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Next Generation Partner for M\u0026amp;A Middle Market ($500M-999M)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented Cox Enterprises in the sale of a majority stake in Cox Media Group's television stations and its Dayton newspaper and radio stations to Apollo Global Management.{{ FIELD }}Represented USA Television in its sale of 11 television stations to Allen Media Broadcasting, a unit of Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios, for $305 million.{{ FIELD }}Represented large mobility company in the creation of mobility subscription service joint venture.{{ FIELD }}Represented a cable company in its investment in a fiber-optic network services provider.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large communications company in its investment in and subsequent sale of such investment in a private tower and communications site company.{{ FIELD }}Represented a private equity firm in connection with its acquisition of a residential gas distribution company.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large media company in the sale of its newspapers and related media assets in Texas.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large media company in the sale of its newspapers and related media assets in Florida.{{ FIELD }}Represented broadcast group in the acquisition of a television station in Huntsville, Alabama.{{ FIELD }}Represented private equity firm in its sale of its managed infrastructure as service solution portfolio company.{{ FIELD }}Represented automotive solutions provider in its acquisition of aftermarket technology solutions company.{{ FIELD }}Represented large automotive solutions provider in its investment and strategic alliance with an automotive inspections solutions company.{{ FIELD }}Represented UK based company in its investment in an ADSB air traffic surveillance service.{{ FIELD }}Represented R1 RCM Inc. (NASDAQ: RCM), a leading provider of technology-driven solutions that transform the patient experience and financial performance of healthcare providers, in its acquisition of VisitPay, a leading digital payment solution provider.{{ FIELD }}Represented Cox Enterprises in its investment into Faze Clan, Inc.{{ FIELD }}Represented a private equity company in its acquisition of a fastener distribution company.{{ FIELD }}Represented DaDa Holdings in its sale of the controlling interest of New Day Aluminum Holdings LLC to Concord Resources Limited.{{ FIELD }}Katie Blaszak is a corporate attorney in our Mergers \u0026amp; Acquisitions and Private Equity practices.  Katie focuses her practice on advising clients on mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, complex commercial transactions, strategic partnerships, and other general corporate and business matters.  Katie has experience in a wide range of verticals, including manufacturing, distribution, telecommunications, mediate and technology sectors, having represented private equity firms and strategic clients in the paper, printing, power, industrials services, broadcast, cable, newspaper, digital media, technology, as well as automotive sectors.  Partner Named a Next Generation Partner for M\u0026amp;A Middle Market ($500M-999M) Legal 500, 2022 Duke University Duke University School of Law Washington and Lee University Washington and Lee University School of Law District of Columbia Massachusetts Represented Cox Enterprises in the sale of a majority stake in Cox Media Group's television stations and its Dayton newspaper and radio stations to Apollo Global Management. Represented USA Television in its sale of 11 television stations to Allen Media Broadcasting, a unit of Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios, for $305 million. Represented large mobility company in the creation of mobility subscription service joint venture. Represented a cable company in its investment in a fiber-optic network services provider. Represented a large communications company in its investment in and subsequent sale of such investment in a private tower and communications site company. Represented a private equity firm in connection with its acquisition of a residential gas distribution company. Represented a large media company in the sale of its newspapers and related media assets in Texas. Represented a large media company in the sale of its newspapers and related media assets in Florida. Represented broadcast group in the acquisition of a television station in Huntsville, Alabama. Represented private equity firm in its sale of its managed infrastructure as service solution portfolio company. Represented automotive solutions provider in its acquisition of aftermarket technology solutions company. Represented large automotive solutions provider in its investment and strategic alliance with an automotive inspections solutions company. Represented UK based company in its investment in an ADSB air traffic surveillance service. Represented R1 RCM Inc. (NASDAQ: RCM), a leading provider of technology-driven solutions that transform the patient experience and financial performance of healthcare providers, in its acquisition of VisitPay, a leading digital payment solution provider. Represented Cox Enterprises in its investment into Faze Clan, Inc. Represented a private equity company in its acquisition of a fastener distribution company. Represented DaDa Holdings in its sale of the controlling interest of New Day Aluminum Holdings LLC to Concord Resources Limited.","searchable_name":"Kathleen Blaszak (Katie)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442372,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":883,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mark-brown","email":"mbrown@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillip Morris USA\u003c/strong\u003e v. FDA\u003c/em\u003e, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eUnited States v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFranck's Lab\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuring his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990\u0026ndash;1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e (2008 and 2015), \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe General Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e (2007) and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBaxter Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e (2006).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince 2002, served on the national counsel team for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eO'Neal v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFrom 1995 to 2001, served on \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eConnaught Laboratories v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNext Nutrition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev. SportPharma USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies\u003c/strong\u003e to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Top 10 pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea top tier biotechnology company\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous internal investigations for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ebiotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral drug and device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":51}]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brown","nick_name":"Mark","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Mark","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney ","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Named Life Sciences Star ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016"},{"title":"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers ","detail":"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016"},{"title":"Superior Achievement Award ","detail":"U.S. Department of Health \u0026 Human Services, 1992"},{"title":"Commendable Service Award ","detail":"FDA, 1992–1994"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillip Morris USA\u003c/strong\u003e v. FDA\u003c/em\u003e, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eUnited States v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFranck's Lab\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuring his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990\u0026ndash;1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e (2008 and 2015), \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe General Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e (2007) and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBaxter Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e (2006).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince 2002, served on the national counsel team for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eO'Neal v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFrom 1995 to 2001, served on \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eConnaught Laboratories v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNext Nutrition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev. SportPharma USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies\u003c/strong\u003e to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Top 10 pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea top tier biotechnology company\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous internal investigations for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ebiotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral drug and device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney ","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Named Life Sciences Star ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016"},{"title":"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers ","detail":"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016"},{"title":"Superior Achievement Award ","detail":"U.S. Department of Health \u0026 Human Services, 1992"},{"title":"Commendable Service Award ","detail":"FDA, 1992–1994"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":746}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Brown{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Life Sciences Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Superior Achievement Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Health \u0026amp; Human Services, 1992\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendable Service Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"FDA, 1992–1994\"}{{ FIELD }}Phillip Morris USA v. FDA, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.{{ FIELD }}United States v. Franck's Lab, 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.{{ FIELD }}During his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990–1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including Medtronic (2008 and 2015), The General Electric Company (2007) and Baxter Healthcare (2006).{{ FIELD }}Since 2002, served on the national counsel team for GlaxoSmithKline in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in O'Neal v. SmithKline Beecham (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.{{ FIELD }}From 1995 to 2001, served on 3M's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.{{ FIELD }}Connaught Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.{{ FIELD }}Next Nutrition, Inc. v. SportPharma USA, Inc., No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.{{ FIELD }}Represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.{{ FIELD }}Conducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of multiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.{{ FIELD }}Conducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for a Top 10 pharmaceutical company’s blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.{{ FIELD }}Conducted a risk assessment for a top tier biotechnology company’s drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.{{ FIELD }}Led numerous internal investigations for biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented several drug and device manufacturers concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation’s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.{{ FIELD }}Represented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.{{ FIELD }}Conducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.{{ FIELD }}Assisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.{{ FIELD }}Mark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.\nMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\nMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\nMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\nBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients. Mark S Brown Partner Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney  Law \u0026amp; Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017 Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S.  Legal 500, 2016 Named Life Sciences Star  LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016 Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers  Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016 Superior Achievement Award  U.S. Department of Health \u0026amp; Human Services, 1992 Commendable Service Award  FDA, 1992–1994 University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School St. Louis University  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania District of Columbia Bar Maryland State Bar Phillip Morris USA v. FDA, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products. United States v. Franck's Lab, 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs. During his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990–1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including Medtronic (2008 and 2015), The General Electric Company (2007) and Baxter Healthcare (2006). Since 2002, served on the national counsel team for GlaxoSmithKline in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in O'Neal v. SmithKline Beecham (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil. From 1995 to 2001, served on 3M's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues. Connaught Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine. Next Nutrition, Inc. v. SportPharma USA, Inc., No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award. Represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation. Conducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of multiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure. Conducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for a Top 10 pharmaceutical company’s blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas. Conducted a risk assessment for a top tier biotechnology company’s drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making. Led numerous internal investigations for biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues. Represented several drug and device manufacturers concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues. Represented one of the nation’s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement. Represented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product. Represented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments. Conducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices. Assisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.","searchable_name":"Mark S. Brown","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":196,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447510,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5781,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.\u0026rdquo; - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his\u0026nbsp;client's business as a whole.\u0026nbsp;He\u0026nbsp;works closely with his client\u0026nbsp;to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for\u0026nbsp;aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business.\u0026nbsp;Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side\u0026rsquo;s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5,\u0026nbsp;Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and\u0026nbsp;Kodiak Robotics\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a\u0026nbsp;wide range\u0026nbsp;of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure\u0026nbsp;and protect\u0026nbsp;trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies\u0026nbsp;through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"shane-brun","email":"sbrun@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a cybersecurity company against a competitor\u0026rsquo;s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brun","nick_name":"Shane","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Shane","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\"","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2017"},{"title":"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor","detail":"The National Law Journal"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.\u0026rdquo; - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his\u0026nbsp;client's business as a whole.\u0026nbsp;He\u0026nbsp;works closely with his client\u0026nbsp;to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for\u0026nbsp;aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business.\u0026nbsp;Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side\u0026rsquo;s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5,\u0026nbsp;Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and\u0026nbsp;Kodiak Robotics\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a\u0026nbsp;wide range\u0026nbsp;of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure\u0026nbsp;and protect\u0026nbsp;trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies\u0026nbsp;through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a cybersecurity company against a competitor\u0026rsquo;s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\"","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2017"},{"title":"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor","detail":"The National Law Journal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8412},{"id":8412}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-14T09:32:06.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-14T09:32:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Brun{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Cited by client as \\\" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The National Law Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}Defended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.{{ FIELD }}Defended a cybersecurity company against a competitor’s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.{{ FIELD }}Defended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.{{ FIELD }}Defended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.{{ FIELD }}Hired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.{{ FIELD }}Defended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.{{ FIELD }}Represented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.{{ FIELD }}\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.” - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his client's business as a whole. He works closely with his client to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business. Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side’s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\nShane has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5, Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and Kodiak Robotics in patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a wide range of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure and protect trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.\nShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\nShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.  \nShane sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles Partner Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\" IAM Patent 1000 Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals IAM Patent 1000, 2017 Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor The National Law Journal University of Arkansas University of Arkansas School of Law University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Member, American Bar Association Member, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association Member, San Francisco Bar Association Board member, Western Center on Law \u0026amp; Poverty Member, Educational Foundation of Orinda and Arkansas Alumni Association Defended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations. Defended a cybersecurity company against a competitor’s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims. Defended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case. Defended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims. Hired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client. Represented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial. Represented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client. Defended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action. Represented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.","searchable_name":"Shane Brun","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":432187,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2620,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLaura Bushnell is a partner in our\u0026nbsp;Corporate, Finance and Investments\u0026nbsp;practice who counsels\u0026nbsp;management and Boards of Directors of private and public companies, particularly in the life sciences and technology sectors, on capital raising matters, strategic transactions and corporate governance.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLaura has represented issuers, investors and financial institutions in numerous capital-raising transactions, including venture capital and seed financings, crossover rounds, strategic investments, initial public offerings, follow-on and secondary offerings, recapitalizations and PIPE financings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Laura frequently serves as primary outside counsel to emerging growth\u0026nbsp;companies. In this capacity, she advises management on such matters as corporate governance, disclosure and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting obligations, employment and equity compensation, fiduciary duties, strategic transactions and acquisitions, commercial agreements, and compliance with securities laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is a regular speaker on a range of transactional and governance topics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe serves on the Board of Trustees of the UC Santa Cruz Foundation and previously served on\u0026nbsp;the Board of Directors\u0026nbsp;of the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County.\u0026nbsp; She chairs the Dean's Advisory Council\u0026nbsp;of the Baskin School of Engineering, University of California\u0026nbsp;Santa Cruz.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"laura-bushnell","email":"lbushnell@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":54}]},"expertise":[{"id":26,"guid":"26.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":27,"guid":"27.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1081,"guid":"1081.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1192,"guid":"1192.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":123,"guid":"123.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1193,"guid":"1193.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":18,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":20,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":21,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bushnell","nick_name":"Laura","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Laura","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"I.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Finance","detail":"Capital Markets: Equity Offerings - Legal 500 US"},{"title":"M\u0026A/Corporate and Commercial - M\u0026A: middle-market ($500m-999m) ","detail":"Legal 500 US"},{"title":"Ranked as one of America’s leading lawyers for business in Venture Capital ","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"M\u0026A/Corporate and Commercial – Venture Capital \u0026 Emerging Companies","detail":"Legal 500 US"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-i-bushnell-43a0932/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":60,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLaura Bushnell is a partner in our\u0026nbsp;Corporate, Finance and Investments\u0026nbsp;practice who counsels\u0026nbsp;management and Boards of Directors of private and public companies, particularly in the life sciences and technology sectors, on capital raising matters, strategic transactions and corporate governance.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLaura has represented issuers, investors and financial institutions in numerous capital-raising transactions, including venture capital and seed financings, crossover rounds, strategic investments, initial public offerings, follow-on and secondary offerings, recapitalizations and PIPE financings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Laura frequently serves as primary outside counsel to emerging growth\u0026nbsp;companies. In this capacity, she advises management on such matters as corporate governance, disclosure and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting obligations, employment and equity compensation, fiduciary duties, strategic transactions and acquisitions, commercial agreements, and compliance with securities laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is a regular speaker on a range of transactional and governance topics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe serves on the Board of Trustees of the UC Santa Cruz Foundation and previously served on\u0026nbsp;the Board of Directors\u0026nbsp;of the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County.\u0026nbsp; She chairs the Dean's Advisory Council\u0026nbsp;of the Baskin School of Engineering, University of California\u0026nbsp;Santa Cruz.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Finance","detail":"Capital Markets: Equity Offerings - Legal 500 US"},{"title":"M\u0026A/Corporate and Commercial - M\u0026A: middle-market ($500m-999m) ","detail":"Legal 500 US"},{"title":"Ranked as one of America’s leading lawyers for business in Venture Capital ","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"M\u0026A/Corporate and Commercial – Venture Capital \u0026 Emerging Companies","detail":"Legal 500 US"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7187}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-07-22T19:37:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-07-22T19:37:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Bushnell{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Finance\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Capital Markets: Equity Offerings - Legal 500 US\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"M\u0026amp;A/Corporate and Commercial - M\u0026amp;A: middle-market ($500m-999m) \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as one of America’s leading lawyers for business in Venture Capital \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"M\u0026amp;A/Corporate and Commercial – Venture Capital \u0026amp; Emerging Companies\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US\"}{{ FIELD }}Laura Bushnell is a partner in our Corporate, Finance and Investments practice who counsels management and Boards of Directors of private and public companies, particularly in the life sciences and technology sectors, on capital raising matters, strategic transactions and corporate governance.\nLaura has represented issuers, investors and financial institutions in numerous capital-raising transactions, including venture capital and seed financings, crossover rounds, strategic investments, initial public offerings, follow-on and secondary offerings, recapitalizations and PIPE financings.\nIn addition, Laura frequently serves as primary outside counsel to emerging growth companies. In this capacity, she advises management on such matters as corporate governance, disclosure and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting obligations, employment and equity compensation, fiduciary duties, strategic transactions and acquisitions, commercial agreements, and compliance with securities laws.\nShe is a regular speaker on a range of transactional and governance topics.\nShe serves on the Board of Trustees of the UC Santa Cruz Foundation and previously served on the Board of Directors of the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County.  She chairs the Dean's Advisory Council of the Baskin School of Engineering, University of California Santa Cruz. Laura I Bushnell Partner Finance Capital Markets: Equity Offerings - Legal 500 US M\u0026amp;A/Corporate and Commercial - M\u0026amp;A: middle-market ($500m-999m)  Legal 500 US Ranked as one of America’s leading lawyers for business in Venture Capital  Chambers USA M\u0026amp;A/Corporate and Commercial – Venture Capital \u0026amp; Emerging Companies Legal 500 US Stanford University Stanford Law School Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center California","searchable_name":"Laura I. Bushnell","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}