{"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":"118","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"M","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":443976,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6915,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRyan Majerus is a Partner in the International Trade Team of King \u0026amp; Spalding. His practice covers trade remedies, trade policy and negotiations, trade agreement enforcement, import compliance, supply chains, and government procurement. \u0026nbsp;He has particular experience in the steel, aluminum, automotive, agricultural, and energy industries.\u0026nbsp; He recently performed the functions of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance\u0026nbsp;at the U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration for over a year, serving as the decisionmaker for every AD/CVD duty imposed by the U.S.\u0026nbsp; He also was the Senior Policy Advisor for Supply Chains at the White House National Economic Council under President Joe Biden, where he played a central role in U.S. industrial strategy.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ryan has been regularly quoted and consulted by major media outlets, including Reuters, Bloomberg, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Barron\u0026rsquo;s, the Associated Press, AFP, the Detroit Free Press, Pitchbook, Agripulse, and Law360.\u0026nbsp; He has also made TV and radio appearances on the BBC, Street Signs Asia, and Bloomberg Radio.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to his 4 years in political roles at Commerce and the White House, Ryan had a decade-long legal career in the federal government, serving as the Senior Counsel for Appellate And Supreme Court Litigation at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (\u0026ldquo;USDA\u0026rdquo;); as Assistant General Counsel at the Office of the USTR under the first Trump Administration, where he litigated several disputes before the WTO involving U.S. trade remedies and government subsidies and was a lead on agriculture trade policy. He also was a trial attorney in the Civil Division of the DOJ, where he represented Commerce as lead counsel in dozens of trade remedies cases before the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and defended numerous agencies in government contracts and bid protest litigation before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdmitted in Washington, D.C. and New York.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ryan-majerus","email":"rmajerus@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;manufacturing, technology, energy, consumer, and private equity clients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the U.S. Administration\u0026rsquo;s trade and tariff policies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised clients on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egovernment procurement, construction, contractual, and M\u0026amp;A issues\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;related to international trade, national security, and supply chain resiliency.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emanufacturing clients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on trade remedy investigations assessments and enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3314}]},"expertise":[{"id":579,"guid":"579.smart_tags","index":0,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":124,"guid":"124.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1147,"guid":"1147.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":116,"guid":"116.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":110,"guid":"110.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1330,"guid":"1330.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1689,"guid":"1689.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Majerus","nick_name":"Ryan","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Chief Judge McCalla, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Ryan","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recipient of the Department of Commerce gold medal for extraordinary efforts in the renegotiation of Section 232 agreements with the EU, UK, and Japan; and in the negotiation of new suspension agreements on a key agricultural product","detail":"Department of Commerce"},{"title":"Recipient of Harry S. Truman Scholarship","detail":"2006"}],"linked_in_url":"www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-majerus-bb114615","seodescription":"Ryan Majerus is a Partner in the International Trade Team of King \u0026 Spalding. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRyan Majerus is a Partner in the International Trade Team of King \u0026amp; Spalding. His practice covers trade remedies, trade policy and negotiations, trade agreement enforcement, import compliance, supply chains, and government procurement. \u0026nbsp;He has particular experience in the steel, aluminum, automotive, agricultural, and energy industries.\u0026nbsp; He recently performed the functions of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance\u0026nbsp;at the U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration for over a year, serving as the decisionmaker for every AD/CVD duty imposed by the U.S.\u0026nbsp; He also was the Senior Policy Advisor for Supply Chains at the White House National Economic Council under President Joe Biden, where he played a central role in U.S. industrial strategy.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Ryan has been regularly quoted and consulted by major media outlets, including Reuters, Bloomberg, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Barron\u0026rsquo;s, the Associated Press, AFP, the Detroit Free Press, Pitchbook, Agripulse, and Law360.\u0026nbsp; He has also made TV and radio appearances on the BBC, Street Signs Asia, and Bloomberg Radio.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to his 4 years in political roles at Commerce and the White House, Ryan had a decade-long legal career in the federal government, serving as the Senior Counsel for Appellate And Supreme Court Litigation at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (\u0026ldquo;USDA\u0026rdquo;); as Assistant General Counsel at the Office of the USTR under the first Trump Administration, where he litigated several disputes before the WTO involving U.S. trade remedies and government subsidies and was a lead on agriculture trade policy. He also was a trial attorney in the Civil Division of the DOJ, where he represented Commerce as lead counsel in dozens of trade remedies cases before the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and defended numerous agencies in government contracts and bid protest litigation before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdmitted in Washington, D.C. and New York.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;manufacturing, technology, energy, consumer, and private equity clients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the U.S. Administration\u0026rsquo;s trade and tariff policies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised clients on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egovernment procurement, construction, contractual, and M\u0026amp;A issues\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;related to international trade, national security, and supply chain resiliency.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emanufacturing clients\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on trade remedy investigations assessments and enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recipient of the Department of Commerce gold medal for extraordinary efforts in the renegotiation of Section 232 agreements with the EU, UK, and Japan; and in the negotiation of new suspension agreements on a key agricultural product","detail":"Department of Commerce"},{"title":"Recipient of Harry S. Truman Scholarship","detail":"2006"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12430}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:15.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:15.000Z","searchable_text":"Majerus{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recipient of the Department of Commerce gold medal for extraordinary efforts in the renegotiation of Section 232 agreements with the EU, UK, and Japan; and in the negotiation of new suspension agreements on a key agricultural product\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Department of Commerce\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recipient of Harry S. Truman Scholarship\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2006\"}{{ FIELD }}Advised manufacturing, technology, energy, consumer, and private equity clients on the U.S. Administration’s trade and tariff policies.{{ FIELD }}Advised clients on government procurement, construction, contractual, and M\u0026amp;A issues related to international trade, national security, and supply chain resiliency.{{ FIELD }}Advised manufacturing clients on trade remedy investigations assessments and enforcement.{{ FIELD }}Ryan Majerus is a Partner in the International Trade Team of King \u0026amp; Spalding. His practice covers trade remedies, trade policy and negotiations, trade agreement enforcement, import compliance, supply chains, and government procurement.  He has particular experience in the steel, aluminum, automotive, agricultural, and energy industries.  He recently performed the functions of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance at the U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration for over a year, serving as the decisionmaker for every AD/CVD duty imposed by the U.S.  He also was the Senior Policy Advisor for Supply Chains at the White House National Economic Council under President Joe Biden, where he played a central role in U.S. industrial strategy.  Ryan has been regularly quoted and consulted by major media outlets, including Reuters, Bloomberg, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, the Associated Press, AFP, the Detroit Free Press, Pitchbook, Agripulse, and Law360.  He has also made TV and radio appearances on the BBC, Street Signs Asia, and Bloomberg Radio.\nPrior to his 4 years in political roles at Commerce and the White House, Ryan had a decade-long legal career in the federal government, serving as the Senior Counsel for Appellate And Supreme Court Litigation at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”); as Assistant General Counsel at the Office of the USTR under the first Trump Administration, where he litigated several disputes before the WTO involving U.S. trade remedies and government subsidies and was a lead on agriculture trade policy. He also was a trial attorney in the Civil Division of the DOJ, where he represented Commerce as lead counsel in dozens of trade remedies cases before the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and defended numerous agencies in government contracts and bid protest litigation before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Federal Circuit.\nAdmitted in Washington, D.C. and New York.  Ryan Majerus lawyer Partner Recipient of the Department of Commerce gold medal for extraordinary efforts in the renegotiation of Section 232 agreements with the EU, UK, and Japan; and in the negotiation of new suspension agreements on a key agricultural product Department of Commerce Recipient of Harry S. Truman Scholarship 2006 Georgetown University  Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center District of Columbia New York Washington International Trade Association Committee to Enforce the U.S. Trade Laws Editor-in-Chief of the Georgetown Journal of International Law Law Clerk, Chief Judge McCalla, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Advised manufacturing, technology, energy, consumer, and private equity clients on the U.S. Administration’s trade and tariff policies. Advised clients on government procurement, construction, contractual, and M\u0026amp;A issues related to international trade, national security, and supply chain resiliency. Advised manufacturing clients on trade remedy investigations assessments and enforcement.","searchable_name":"Ryan Majerus","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":445532,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7304,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRex Mann is a trial lawyer who focuses his practice on patent litigation and other complex commercial litigation matters. Although his patent litigation practice is nationwide, he has extensive experience specifically in patent-heavy districts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. On commercial matters he often represents technology companies or works on matters involving complex technology, and his background in engineering enables him to deeply understand clients\u0026rsquo; technologies and businesses to help them better achieve their goals. Rex\u0026rsquo;s work continues to garner him honors from legal publications such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026reg;\u003c/sup\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;IAM Patent 1000, Lawdragon\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s intellectual property practice primarily consists of complex patent and trade secret litigation. He has handled bet-the-company patent and trade secret matters, including taking them to trial, and winning. Outside of litigation, he advises his clients on technology licensing issues, policies relating to intellectual property, and targeted patent prosecution advice relating to licensing and litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Rex\u0026rsquo;s patent litigation practice is heavily concentrated on matters arising in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. In fact, he began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable T. John Ward in the Eastern District of Texas, where he gained significant experience in federal trial practice and patent litigation, given the district\u0026rsquo;s intense patent trial docket.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex has significant trial experience and has tried more than 20 cases or arbitrations as first chair or in an otherwise stand-up role, and he has experience in all phases of trial. In addition to his civil trial work, Rex spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where he tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict and obtained a guilty verdict in each one.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s commercial litigation practice has included a wide variety of matters, including breach of contract, business torts, consumer class actions, RICO violations, securities laws violations, whistleblower or False Claims Act litigation, employment, fraud, suits against the government or government officials, and other related disputes. Given his background in engineering, the work Rex does for his commercial clients often involves technology issues. Moreover, his undergraduate and graduate degrees in civil and environmental engineering are helpful when working on matters in the environmental and oil and gas industries.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"rex-mann","email":"rmann@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites\u0026mdash;a win that\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAm Law\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognized with a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s technical experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD)\u003c/strong\u003e in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron\u0026nbsp;Elliot\u0026rsquo;s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eFlypsi\u003c/strong\u003e, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google\u0026rsquo;s expert and company representative at trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic\u0026rsquo;s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eRyan Hardin and Andrew Hill\u003c/strong\u003e, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues, the case settled days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFreshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) Lead counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eFreshworks\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSieler v. Atieva Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eAtieva Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMatch Group v. Muzmatch Limited\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client \u003cstrong\u003eUnbnd\u003c/strong\u003e and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party\u0026rsquo;s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd\u0026rsquo;s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Utah) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eLifeVantage\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees against the claimant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-\u003cstrong\u003eNFL player\u003c/strong\u003e in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRanieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eAdvoCare\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Woodbridge Investments Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProphet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCrothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrady\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eRysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital\u003c/strong\u003e as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNash Bridges\u003c/em\u003e. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eSabre\u003c/strong\u003e and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers\u0026rsquo; failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\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":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mann","nick_name":"Rex","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable T. John Ward, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Rex","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"high honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2024-2025"},{"title":"Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Ranked by IAM Patent 1000","detail":"2025"},{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law","detail":"Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023"},{"title":"“Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026"},{"title":"“Texas Lawyer on the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2020"},{"title":"“Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Rising Star”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2016–2024"},{"title":"Order of the Chancellors","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Barristers","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRex Mann is a trial lawyer who focuses his practice on patent litigation and other complex commercial litigation matters. Although his patent litigation practice is nationwide, he has extensive experience specifically in patent-heavy districts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. On commercial matters he often represents technology companies or works on matters involving complex technology, and his background in engineering enables him to deeply understand clients\u0026rsquo; technologies and businesses to help them better achieve their goals. Rex\u0026rsquo;s work continues to garner him honors from legal publications such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026reg;\u003c/sup\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;IAM Patent 1000, Lawdragon\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s intellectual property practice primarily consists of complex patent and trade secret litigation. He has handled bet-the-company patent and trade secret matters, including taking them to trial, and winning. Outside of litigation, he advises his clients on technology licensing issues, policies relating to intellectual property, and targeted patent prosecution advice relating to licensing and litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Rex\u0026rsquo;s patent litigation practice is heavily concentrated on matters arising in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. In fact, he began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable T. John Ward in the Eastern District of Texas, where he gained significant experience in federal trial practice and patent litigation, given the district\u0026rsquo;s intense patent trial docket.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex has significant trial experience and has tried more than 20 cases or arbitrations as first chair or in an otherwise stand-up role, and he has experience in all phases of trial. In addition to his civil trial work, Rex spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where he tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict and obtained a guilty verdict in each one.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s commercial litigation practice has included a wide variety of matters, including breach of contract, business torts, consumer class actions, RICO violations, securities laws violations, whistleblower or False Claims Act litigation, employment, fraud, suits against the government or government officials, and other related disputes. Given his background in engineering, the work Rex does for his commercial clients often involves technology issues. Moreover, his undergraduate and graduate degrees in civil and environmental engineering are helpful when working on matters in the environmental and oil and gas industries.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites\u0026mdash;a win that\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAm Law\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognized with a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s technical experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD)\u003c/strong\u003e in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron\u0026nbsp;Elliot\u0026rsquo;s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eFlypsi\u003c/strong\u003e, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google\u0026rsquo;s expert and company representative at trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic\u0026rsquo;s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eRyan Hardin and Andrew Hill\u003c/strong\u003e, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues, the case settled days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFreshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) Lead counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eFreshworks\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSieler v. Atieva Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eAtieva Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMatch Group v. Muzmatch Limited\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client \u003cstrong\u003eUnbnd\u003c/strong\u003e and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party\u0026rsquo;s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd\u0026rsquo;s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Utah) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eLifeVantage\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees against the claimant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-\u003cstrong\u003eNFL player\u003c/strong\u003e in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRanieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eAdvoCare\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Woodbridge Investments Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProphet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCrothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrady\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eRysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital\u003c/strong\u003e as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNash Bridges\u003c/em\u003e. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eSabre\u003c/strong\u003e and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers\u0026rsquo; failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2024-2025"},{"title":"Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Ranked by IAM Patent 1000","detail":"2025"},{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law","detail":"Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023"},{"title":"“Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026"},{"title":"“Texas Lawyer on the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2020"},{"title":"“Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Rising Star”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2016–2024"},{"title":"Order of the Chancellors","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Barristers","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13343}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:53.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Mann{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2024-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Patexia, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked by IAM Patent 1000\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Future Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Texas Lawyer on the Rise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2019–2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2016–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Chancellors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Texas School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Coif\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Texas School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Barristers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Texas School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}Patent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation{{ FIELD }}Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for U.S. Well Services in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services’ fracturing sites—a win that Am Law recognized with a “Litigator of the Week” first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton’s technical experts.{{ FIELD }}In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot’s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial.{{ FIELD }}Flypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff Flypsi, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google’s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google’s expert and company representative at trial.{{ FIELD }}TMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant Medtronic in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic’s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.{{ FIELD }}Hardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Ryan Hardin and Andrew Hill, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and Daubert issues, the case settled days before trial.{{ FIELD }}Freshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC (D. Del.) Lead counsel for Freshworks in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.{{ FIELD }}Sieler v. Atieva Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for Atieva Inc. in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.{{ FIELD }}Match Group v. Muzmatch Limited (W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.{{ FIELD }}Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al. (E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement.{{ FIELD }}Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Matters{{ FIELD }}Unbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al. (FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client Unbnd and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party’s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd’s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award.{{ FIELD }}Smith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al. (D. Utah) Counsel for defendant LifeVantage in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied.{{ FIELD }}Confidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys’ fees against the claimant.{{ FIELD }}Confidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-NFL player in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment.{{ FIELD }}Ranieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al. (N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant AdvoCare in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.{{ FIELD }}United States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act.{{ FIELD }}Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.{{ FIELD }}Fee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al. (Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation (C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing.{{ FIELD }}Prophet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company (5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.{{ FIELD }}Crothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al. (D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various Brady violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase.{{ FIELD }}Rysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc. (L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented Rysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series Nash Bridges. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.{{ FIELD }}Sabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al. (N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented Sabre and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers’ failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.{{ FIELD }}Rex Mann is a trial lawyer who focuses his practice on patent litigation and other complex commercial litigation matters. Although his patent litigation practice is nationwide, he has extensive experience specifically in patent-heavy districts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. On commercial matters he often represents technology companies or works on matters involving complex technology, and his background in engineering enables him to deeply understand clients’ technologies and businesses to help them better achieve their goals. Rex’s work continues to garner him honors from legal publications such as The Best Lawyers in America®, IAM Patent 1000, Lawdragon, and Benchmark Litigation.\nRex’s intellectual property practice primarily consists of complex patent and trade secret litigation. He has handled bet-the-company patent and trade secret matters, including taking them to trial, and winning. Outside of litigation, he advises his clients on technology licensing issues, policies relating to intellectual property, and targeted patent prosecution advice relating to licensing and litigation.\n“Rex’s patent litigation practice is heavily concentrated on matters arising in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. In fact, he began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable T. John Ward in the Eastern District of Texas, where he gained significant experience in federal trial practice and patent litigation, given the district’s intense patent trial docket.\nRex has significant trial experience and has tried more than 20 cases or arbitrations as first chair or in an otherwise stand-up role, and he has experience in all phases of trial. In addition to his civil trial work, Rex spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where he tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict and obtained a guilty verdict in each one.\nRex’s commercial litigation practice has included a wide variety of matters, including breach of contract, business torts, consumer class actions, RICO violations, securities laws violations, whistleblower or False Claims Act litigation, employment, fraud, suits against the government or government officials, and other related disputes. Given his background in engineering, the work Rex does for his commercial clients often involves technology issues. Moreover, his undergraduate and graduate degrees in civil and environmental engineering are helpful when working on matters in the environmental and oil and gas industries. Partner Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2024-2025 Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report Patexia, 2024–2025 Ranked by IAM Patent 1000 2025 Litigation – Intellectual Property The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026 Litigation – Patent The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023 “Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers” Lawdragon, 2023–2025 “Future Star” Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026 “Texas Lawyer on the Rise”  Texas Lawyer, 2020 “Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars” Super Lawyers, 2019–2021 “Rising Star” Super Lawyers, 2016–2024 Order of the Chancellors University of Texas School of Law Order of the Coif University of Texas School of Law Order of the Barristers University of Texas School of Law Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law Texas Board of Trustees, Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center, 2016–2022 Board Member, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, 2017–2018 District 6 Grievance Committee Member, State Bar of Texas, 2015–2018 Co-Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, 2015–2017 Co-Chair of the Business and Career Development Committee, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, 2015–2016 Law Clerk, Honorable T. John Ward, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Patent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for U.S. Well Services in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services’ fracturing sites—a win that Am Law recognized with a “Litigator of the Week” first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton’s technical experts. In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot’s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial. Flypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff Flypsi, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google’s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google’s expert and company representative at trial. TMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant Medtronic in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic’s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement. Hardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Ryan Hardin and Andrew Hill, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and Daubert issues, the case settled days before trial. Freshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC (D. Del.) Lead counsel for Freshworks in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled. Sieler v. Atieva Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for Atieva Inc. in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva. Match Group v. Muzmatch Limited (W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution. Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al. (E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement. Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants. Commercial Litigation and Other Matters Unbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al. (FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client Unbnd and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party’s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd’s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award. Smith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al. (D. Utah) Counsel for defendant LifeVantage in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied. Confidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys’ fees against the claimant. Confidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-NFL player in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment. Ranieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al. (N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant AdvoCare in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery. United States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act. Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer. Fee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al. (Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial. In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation (C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing. Prophet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company (5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Crothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al. (D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various Brady violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase. Rysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc. (L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented Rysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series Nash Bridges. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages. Sabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al. (N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented Sabre and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers’ failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.","searchable_name":"Rex A. Mann","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":448148,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5777,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDamien Marshall is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group and Co-Head of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Business Litigation Practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on the resolution of complex business disputes over a broad range of substantive areas, including corporate governance and shareholder disputes, antitrust, securities, consumer protection and general commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp; Damien has extensive experience representing clients on a broad range of litigation and regulatory matters with particular emphasis on defending financial institutions and technology companies in class action and MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien has successfully represented clients in significant matters for more than 20 years, including: American Express in antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record breaking $4 billion; BNY Mellon in a RICO suit \u0026nbsp;brought by the Russian Federal Tax Authority and venued in the Russian Arbitrage Court where BNY Mellon resolved the matter for less than 1 percent of claimed damages; DraftKings in a class action lawsuit challenging the use of college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests, where DraftKings obtained summary judgment; DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports, where the matter was resolved for play credits; Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging the sale of an unregistered security where Ripple obtained summary judgment; HSBC in all civil litigation related to its RMBS issuance business; and Goldman Sachs in a partnership dispute in which Goldman Sachs obtained a complete defense victory after an arbitration hearing. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently, Damien\u0026rsquo;s disclosable work includes representation of: Madison Square Garden in litigation and administrative matters; EarthLink LLC in a partnership dispute with Charter Communications; a group of 14 hospital systems in antitrust litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield; and Ripple Labs in numerous matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout the nation.\u0026nbsp; His clients include large global financial institutions, as well as companies in the media and entertainment space, technology companies, Fintech companies, hedge funds and private equity funds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegardless of the client or forum, Damien focuses on achieving his client\u0026rsquo;s legal and business goals in an efficient and effective manner.\u0026nbsp; Damien is recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal500 \u003c/em\u003efor his general litigation practice and GAR for his antitrust practice. In addition to his dispute resolution practice, Damien provides risk analysis and advice to clients regarding potential exposures and risk mitigation strategies.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"damien-marshall","email":"dmarshall@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3779}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1165,"guid":"1165.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1179,"guid":"1179.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1261,"guid":"1261.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Marshall","nick_name":"Damien","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Rosemary Barkett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"2000 - 2001"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida","years_held":"1999 - 2000"}],"first_name":"Damien","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1999-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500","detail":""},{"title":"Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers","detail":""},{"title":"Client Service All Star","detail":"BTI, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Damien Marshall is a lawyer of our Business Litigation Practice Group. Read more.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDamien Marshall is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group and Co-Head of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Business Litigation Practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on the resolution of complex business disputes over a broad range of substantive areas, including corporate governance and shareholder disputes, antitrust, securities, consumer protection and general commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp; Damien has extensive experience representing clients on a broad range of litigation and regulatory matters with particular emphasis on defending financial institutions and technology companies in class action and MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien has successfully represented clients in significant matters for more than 20 years, including: American Express in antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record breaking $4 billion; BNY Mellon in a RICO suit \u0026nbsp;brought by the Russian Federal Tax Authority and venued in the Russian Arbitrage Court where BNY Mellon resolved the matter for less than 1 percent of claimed damages; DraftKings in a class action lawsuit challenging the use of college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests, where DraftKings obtained summary judgment; DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports, where the matter was resolved for play credits; Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging the sale of an unregistered security where Ripple obtained summary judgment; HSBC in all civil litigation related to its RMBS issuance business; and Goldman Sachs in a partnership dispute in which Goldman Sachs obtained a complete defense victory after an arbitration hearing. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently, Damien\u0026rsquo;s disclosable work includes representation of: Madison Square Garden in litigation and administrative matters; EarthLink LLC in a partnership dispute with Charter Communications; a group of 14 hospital systems in antitrust litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield; and Ripple Labs in numerous matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout the nation.\u0026nbsp; His clients include large global financial institutions, as well as companies in the media and entertainment space, technology companies, Fintech companies, hedge funds and private equity funds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegardless of the client or forum, Damien focuses on achieving his client\u0026rsquo;s legal and business goals in an efficient and effective manner.\u0026nbsp; Damien is recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal500 \u003c/em\u003efor his general litigation practice and GAR for his antitrust practice. In addition to his dispute resolution practice, Damien provides risk analysis and advice to clients regarding potential exposures and risk mitigation strategies.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500","detail":""},{"title":"Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers","detail":""},{"title":"Client Service All Star","detail":"BTI, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11377}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-08T14:34:09.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-08T14:34:09.000Z","searchable_text":"Marshall{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Client Service All Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Defense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business{{ FIELD }}The successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion{{ FIELD }}Successful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests{{ FIELD }}Leading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports{{ FIELD }}Leading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets{{ FIELD }}Leading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security{{ FIELD }}Damien Marshall is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group and Co-Head of the Firm’s Business Litigation Practice.  His practice focuses on the resolution of complex business disputes over a broad range of substantive areas, including corporate governance and shareholder disputes, antitrust, securities, consumer protection and general commercial disputes.  Damien has extensive experience representing clients on a broad range of litigation and regulatory matters with particular emphasis on defending financial institutions and technology companies in class action and MDL proceedings.  \nDamien has successfully represented clients in significant matters for more than 20 years, including: American Express in antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record breaking $4 billion; BNY Mellon in a RICO suit  brought by the Russian Federal Tax Authority and venued in the Russian Arbitrage Court where BNY Mellon resolved the matter for less than 1 percent of claimed damages; DraftKings in a class action lawsuit challenging the use of college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests, where DraftKings obtained summary judgment; DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports, where the matter was resolved for play credits; Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging the sale of an unregistered security where Ripple obtained summary judgment; HSBC in all civil litigation related to its RMBS issuance business; and Goldman Sachs in a partnership dispute in which Goldman Sachs obtained a complete defense victory after an arbitration hearing.  \nCurrently, Damien’s disclosable work includes representation of: Madison Square Garden in litigation and administrative matters; EarthLink LLC in a partnership dispute with Charter Communications; a group of 14 hospital systems in antitrust litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield; and Ripple Labs in numerous matters. \nDamien regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout the nation.  His clients include large global financial institutions, as well as companies in the media and entertainment space, technology companies, Fintech companies, hedge funds and private equity funds.\nRegardless of the client or forum, Damien focuses on achieving his client’s legal and business goals in an efficient and effective manner.  Damien is recognized by The Legal500 for his general litigation practice and GAR for his antitrust practice. In addition to his dispute resolution practice, Damien provides risk analysis and advice to clients regarding potential exposures and risk mitigation strategies. Damien Marshall lawyer Partner Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, 2025 Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500  Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers  Client Service All Star BTI, 2020 University of California-Los Angeles UCLA School of Law Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Florida New York Member, Georgetown University Law Alumni Board Member, UCLA New York Regional Alumni Committee Trustee, The Fredrick Gunn School Law Clerk, Hon. Rosemary Barkett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Law Clerk, Hon. Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Defense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business The successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion Successful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests Leading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports Leading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets Leading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security","searchable_name":"Damien Marshall","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":437140,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7216,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew D. McGill is a leader in arbitral award and judgment enforcement and an accomplished appellate advocate who handles civil litigation appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States and courts of appeals around the country. Over the last 20+ years, Matt has argued five cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and participated in many more, including several high-profile triumphs over foreign sovereigns.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA three-time \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(The AmLaw Litigation Daily\u003c/em\u003e), Matt is consistently ranked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA in Nationwide Appellate Law\u003c/em\u003e (2007-2025) and has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2020 \u0026ldquo;Litigation Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; for his pioneering work enforcing judgments against foreign sovereigns. Most recently, Matthew has been named to \u003cem\u003eLawdragon\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Litigators in America\u0026rdquo; guide (2024-2025) and was listed as a \u0026ldquo;Leading Global Litigator\u0026rdquo; for 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong his many achievements, in 2020, Matthew successfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Previously, he successfully resolved NML Capital\u0026rsquo;s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the \u003cem\u003eFinancial Times \u003c/em\u003ecalled \u0026ldquo;the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.\u0026rdquo; His current case load includes public enforcement matters against the governments of Argentina, India, Iran, Spain, and Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his arbitral award enforcement and appellate practice, Matthew is highly regarded for his work at the intersection of sport and gaming. He is featured in the 2024 edition of \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e for Gaming Law and, for his work toward legalizing sports wagering and confining the Wire Act to its intended scope, Matthew has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as a 2019 Sports Law \u0026ldquo;MVP\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;2020 Sports \u0026amp; Entertainment Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; by The \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior entering private practice, Matthew served as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice. He clerked for the Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"matthew-mcgill","email":"matthew.mcgill@kslaw.com ","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eInternational Disputes\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolved NML Capital\u0026rsquo;s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;called \u0026ldquo;the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained $1 billion judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran for victims of the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading U.S. enforcement against the Kingdom of Spain of several arbitral awards redressing violations of the Energy Charter Treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading global enforcement of arbitral awards against the Government of India and the Republic of Argentina.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eSupreme Court\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCC/Devas v. Antrix Corp.\u003c/em\u003e (2025) \u0026ndash; Arguing this case before the Supreme Court, Matt persuaded the Court to reject a lower court ruling that had found no jurisdiction to hear an enforcement action against one of India\u0026rsquo;s state-owed entities.\u0026nbsp; Matt\u0026rsquo;s 9-0 victory safeguarded the ability of arbitral award holders to bring enforcement actions in the United States against foreign sovereigns and their state-owned entities. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpati v. Republic of Sudan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2020) \u0026ndash; Matt successfully argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and secured a ruling that \u0026ldquo;unanimously reinstated as much as $4.3 billion in punitive damages awarded against Sudan\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eNew York Times\u003c/em\u003e) setting the stage for the resolution of the Embassy bombing claims and the United States\u0026rsquo; delisting of Sudan as a state-sponsor of terrorism.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePuerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2016) \u0026ndash; Arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of creditors that found themselves on the leading edge of Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s debt crisis, Matthew successfully defended an injunction invalidating Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s emergency municipal bankruptcy legislation. The ruling protected bondholders against the \u0026ldquo;chance that the territory could write its own bankruptcy plan\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eWall Street Journal\u003c/em\u003e) and ensured that Congress would retain control over Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s fiscal rescue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBank Markazi v. Peterson\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2016) \u0026ndash; In this important separation-of-powers case, Matthew represented victims of the 1983 Beirut Marine Corps Barracks Bombing who hold judgments against Iran. Ruling in favor of the Beirut Marines, the Supreme Court rejected arguments from Iran\u0026rsquo;s central bank that Congress had impermissibly invaded the province of the Judicial Branch by authorizing victims of terrorism to seize certain central bank assets. The ruling allowed nearly $2 billion to be distributed to Iran\u0026rsquo;s victims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArgentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2014) \u0026ndash; The Supreme Court\u0026rsquo;s decision in this case confirmed the availability of broad discovery to enforce judgments against foreign sovereigns, empowering creditors to seek information concerning the debtor nation\u0026rsquo;s assets anywhere in the world.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eSports and Gaming\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the effort of the Governor of New Jersey to legalize sports wagering in the State, culminating in the Supreme Court\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;historic decision\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eSports Illustrated\u003c/em\u003e) in \u003cem\u003eMurphy v. NCAA\u003c/em\u003e that struck down the federal law that had prohibited states other than Nevada from legalizing sports betting. By establishing that the federal government has no power to \u0026ldquo;dictate what a state legislature may and may not do,\u0026rdquo; this \u0026ldquo;landmark ruling\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUSA Today\u003c/em\u003e) safeguards the power of States to govern themselves and cleared the path for States across the country to legalize sports wagering.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the technology provider for the internet-based operations of the New Hampshire Lottery, and secured a judgment that the Wire Act covered only sports betting, and successfully defended that judgment on appeal. The ruling safeguarded \u0026ldquo;the entire online gambling industry as well as multi-state lotteries such as Powerball\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eAm Law Litigation Daily\u003c/em\u003e) from an arbitrary change in government policy.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":38,"guid":"38.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":131,"guid":"131.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1166,"guid":"1166.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McGill","nick_name":"Matt","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","years_held":"2003 - 2004"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","years_held":"2000 - 2002"}],"first_name":"Matthew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1904,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2000-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for Nationwide Appellate Law","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners, 2025"},{"title":"500 Leading Litigators in America","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Work in Gaming Law","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2024"},{"title":"Litigation and Sports Trailblazer","detail":"The National Law Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Sports Law MVP","detail":"Law360, 2019"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-mcgill-7737564/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew D. McGill is a leader in arbitral award and judgment enforcement and an accomplished appellate advocate who handles civil litigation appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States and courts of appeals around the country. Over the last 20+ years, Matt has argued five cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and participated in many more, including several high-profile triumphs over foreign sovereigns.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA three-time \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(The AmLaw Litigation Daily\u003c/em\u003e), Matt is consistently ranked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA in Nationwide Appellate Law\u003c/em\u003e (2007-2025) and has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2020 \u0026ldquo;Litigation Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; for his pioneering work enforcing judgments against foreign sovereigns. Most recently, Matthew has been named to \u003cem\u003eLawdragon\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Litigators in America\u0026rdquo; guide (2024-2025) and was listed as a \u0026ldquo;Leading Global Litigator\u0026rdquo; for 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong his many achievements, in 2020, Matthew successfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Previously, he successfully resolved NML Capital\u0026rsquo;s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the \u003cem\u003eFinancial Times \u003c/em\u003ecalled \u0026ldquo;the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.\u0026rdquo; His current case load includes public enforcement matters against the governments of Argentina, India, Iran, Spain, and Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his arbitral award enforcement and appellate practice, Matthew is highly regarded for his work at the intersection of sport and gaming. He is featured in the 2024 edition of \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e for Gaming Law and, for his work toward legalizing sports wagering and confining the Wire Act to its intended scope, Matthew has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as a 2019 Sports Law \u0026ldquo;MVP\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;2020 Sports \u0026amp; Entertainment Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; by The \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior entering private practice, Matthew served as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice. He clerked for the Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eInternational Disputes\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolved NML Capital\u0026rsquo;s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;called \u0026ldquo;the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained $1 billion judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran for victims of the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading U.S. enforcement against the Kingdom of Spain of several arbitral awards redressing violations of the Energy Charter Treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading global enforcement of arbitral awards against the Government of India and the Republic of Argentina.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eSupreme Court\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCC/Devas v. Antrix Corp.\u003c/em\u003e (2025) \u0026ndash; Arguing this case before the Supreme Court, Matt persuaded the Court to reject a lower court ruling that had found no jurisdiction to hear an enforcement action against one of India\u0026rsquo;s state-owed entities.\u0026nbsp; Matt\u0026rsquo;s 9-0 victory safeguarded the ability of arbitral award holders to bring enforcement actions in the United States against foreign sovereigns and their state-owned entities. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpati v. Republic of Sudan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2020) \u0026ndash; Matt successfully argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and secured a ruling that \u0026ldquo;unanimously reinstated as much as $4.3 billion in punitive damages awarded against Sudan\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eNew York Times\u003c/em\u003e) setting the stage for the resolution of the Embassy bombing claims and the United States\u0026rsquo; delisting of Sudan as a state-sponsor of terrorism.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePuerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2016) \u0026ndash; Arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of creditors that found themselves on the leading edge of Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s debt crisis, Matthew successfully defended an injunction invalidating Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s emergency municipal bankruptcy legislation. The ruling protected bondholders against the \u0026ldquo;chance that the territory could write its own bankruptcy plan\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eWall Street Journal\u003c/em\u003e) and ensured that Congress would retain control over Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s fiscal rescue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBank Markazi v. Peterson\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2016) \u0026ndash; In this important separation-of-powers case, Matthew represented victims of the 1983 Beirut Marine Corps Barracks Bombing who hold judgments against Iran. Ruling in favor of the Beirut Marines, the Supreme Court rejected arguments from Iran\u0026rsquo;s central bank that Congress had impermissibly invaded the province of the Judicial Branch by authorizing victims of terrorism to seize certain central bank assets. The ruling allowed nearly $2 billion to be distributed to Iran\u0026rsquo;s victims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArgentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2014) \u0026ndash; The Supreme Court\u0026rsquo;s decision in this case confirmed the availability of broad discovery to enforce judgments against foreign sovereigns, empowering creditors to seek information concerning the debtor nation\u0026rsquo;s assets anywhere in the world.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eSports and Gaming\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the effort of the Governor of New Jersey to legalize sports wagering in the State, culminating in the Supreme Court\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;historic decision\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eSports Illustrated\u003c/em\u003e) in \u003cem\u003eMurphy v. NCAA\u003c/em\u003e that struck down the federal law that had prohibited states other than Nevada from legalizing sports betting. By establishing that the federal government has no power to \u0026ldquo;dictate what a state legislature may and may not do,\u0026rdquo; this \u0026ldquo;landmark ruling\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUSA Today\u003c/em\u003e) safeguards the power of States to govern themselves and cleared the path for States across the country to legalize sports wagering.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the technology provider for the internet-based operations of the New Hampshire Lottery, and secured a judgment that the Wire Act covered only sports betting, and successfully defended that judgment on appeal. The ruling safeguarded \u0026ldquo;the entire online gambling industry as well as multi-state lotteries such as Powerball\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eAm Law Litigation Daily\u003c/em\u003e) from an arbitrary change in government policy.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for Nationwide Appellate Law","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners, 2025"},{"title":"500 Leading Litigators in America","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Work in Gaming Law","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2024"},{"title":"Litigation and Sports Trailblazer","detail":"The National Law Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Sports Law MVP","detail":"Law360, 2019"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12931}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-11T18:32:36.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-11T18:32:36.000Z","searchable_text":"McGill{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Nationwide Appellate Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"500 Leading Litigators in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Work in Gaming Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation and Sports Trailblazer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The National Law Journal, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Sports Law MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}International Disputes{{ FIELD }}Successfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.{{ FIELD }}Successfully resolved NML Capital’s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the Financial Times called “the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.{{ FIELD }}Obtained $1 billion judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran for victims of the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.{{ FIELD }}Leading U.S. enforcement against the Kingdom of Spain of several arbitral awards redressing violations of the Energy Charter Treaty.{{ FIELD }}Leading global enforcement of arbitral awards against the Government of India and the Republic of Argentina.{{ FIELD }}Supreme Court{{ FIELD }}CC/Devas v. Antrix Corp. (2025) – Arguing this case before the Supreme Court, Matt persuaded the Court to reject a lower court ruling that had found no jurisdiction to hear an enforcement action against one of India’s state-owed entities.  Matt’s 9-0 victory safeguarded the ability of arbitral award holders to bring enforcement actions in the United States against foreign sovereigns and their state-owned entities.  {{ FIELD }}Opati v. Republic of Sudan (2020) – Matt successfully argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and secured a ruling that “unanimously reinstated as much as $4.3 billion in punitive damages awarded against Sudan” (New York Times) setting the stage for the resolution of the Embassy bombing claims and the United States’ delisting of Sudan as a state-sponsor of terrorism.{{ FIELD }}Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust (2016) – Arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of creditors that found themselves on the leading edge of Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, Matthew successfully defended an injunction invalidating Puerto Rico’s emergency municipal bankruptcy legislation. The ruling protected bondholders against the “chance that the territory could write its own bankruptcy plan” (Wall Street Journal) and ensured that Congress would retain control over Puerto Rico’s fiscal rescue.{{ FIELD }}Bank Markazi v. Peterson (2016) – In this important separation-of-powers case, Matthew represented victims of the 1983 Beirut Marine Corps Barracks Bombing who hold judgments against Iran. Ruling in favor of the Beirut Marines, the Supreme Court rejected arguments from Iran’s central bank that Congress had impermissibly invaded the province of the Judicial Branch by authorizing victims of terrorism to seize certain central bank assets. The ruling allowed nearly $2 billion to be distributed to Iran’s victims.{{ FIELD }}Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. (2014) – The Supreme Court’s decision in this case confirmed the availability of broad discovery to enforce judgments against foreign sovereigns, empowering creditors to seek information concerning the debtor nation’s assets anywhere in the world.{{ FIELD }}Sports and Gaming{{ FIELD }}Led the effort of the Governor of New Jersey to legalize sports wagering in the State, culminating in the Supreme Court’s “historic decision” (Sports Illustrated) in Murphy v. NCAA that struck down the federal law that had prohibited states other than Nevada from legalizing sports betting. By establishing that the federal government has no power to “dictate what a state legislature may and may not do,” this “landmark ruling” (USA Today) safeguards the power of States to govern themselves and cleared the path for States across the country to legalize sports wagering.{{ FIELD }}Represented the technology provider for the internet-based operations of the New Hampshire Lottery, and secured a judgment that the Wire Act covered only sports betting, and successfully defended that judgment on appeal. The ruling safeguarded “the entire online gambling industry as well as multi-state lotteries such as Powerball” (Am Law Litigation Daily) from an arbitrary change in government policy.{{ FIELD }}Matthew D. McGill is a leader in arbitral award and judgment enforcement and an accomplished appellate advocate who handles civil litigation appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States and courts of appeals around the country. Over the last 20+ years, Matt has argued five cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and participated in many more, including several high-profile triumphs over foreign sovereigns.\nA three-time “Litigator of the Week” (The AmLaw Litigation Daily), Matt is consistently ranked by Chambers USA in Nationwide Appellate Law (2007-2025) and has been recognized by The National Law Journal as a 2020 “Litigation Trailblazer” for his pioneering work enforcing judgments against foreign sovereigns. Most recently, Matthew has been named to Lawdragon’s “500 Leading Litigators in America” guide (2024-2025) and was listed as a “Leading Global Litigator” for 2025.\nAmong his many achievements, in 2020, Matthew successfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Previously, he successfully resolved NML Capital’s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the Financial Times called “the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.” His current case load includes public enforcement matters against the governments of Argentina, India, Iran, Spain, and Venezuela.\nIn addition to his arbitral award enforcement and appellate practice, Matthew is highly regarded for his work at the intersection of sport and gaming. He is featured in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America for Gaming Law and, for his work toward legalizing sports wagering and confining the Wire Act to its intended scope, Matthew has been recognized by Law360 as a 2019 Sports Law “MVP” and “2020 Sports \u0026amp; Entertainment Trailblazer” by The National Law Journal.\nPrior entering private practice, Matthew served as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice. He clerked for the Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Partner Ranked for Nationwide Appellate Law Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, 2025 500 Leading Litigators in America Lawdragon, 2025 Recognized for Work in Gaming Law Best Lawyers in America, 2024 Litigation and Sports Trailblazer The National Law Journal, 2020 Sports Law MVP Law360, 2019 Dartmouth College  Stanford University Stanford Law School District of Columbia New York Law Clerk, Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Law Clerk, Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit International Disputes Successfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Successfully resolved NML Capital’s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the Financial Times called “the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring. Obtained $1 billion judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran for victims of the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. Leading U.S. enforcement against the Kingdom of Spain of several arbitral awards redressing violations of the Energy Charter Treaty. Leading global enforcement of arbitral awards against the Government of India and the Republic of Argentina. Supreme Court CC/Devas v. Antrix Corp. (2025) – Arguing this case before the Supreme Court, Matt persuaded the Court to reject a lower court ruling that had found no jurisdiction to hear an enforcement action against one of India’s state-owed entities.  Matt’s 9-0 victory safeguarded the ability of arbitral award holders to bring enforcement actions in the United States against foreign sovereigns and their state-owned entities.   Opati v. Republic of Sudan (2020) – Matt successfully argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and secured a ruling that “unanimously reinstated as much as $4.3 billion in punitive damages awarded against Sudan” (New York Times) setting the stage for the resolution of the Embassy bombing claims and the United States’ delisting of Sudan as a state-sponsor of terrorism. Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust (2016) – Arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of creditors that found themselves on the leading edge of Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, Matthew successfully defended an injunction invalidating Puerto Rico’s emergency municipal bankruptcy legislation. The ruling protected bondholders against the “chance that the territory could write its own bankruptcy plan” (Wall Street Journal) and ensured that Congress would retain control over Puerto Rico’s fiscal rescue. Bank Markazi v. Peterson (2016) – In this important separation-of-powers case, Matthew represented victims of the 1983 Beirut Marine Corps Barracks Bombing who hold judgments against Iran. Ruling in favor of the Beirut Marines, the Supreme Court rejected arguments from Iran’s central bank that Congress had impermissibly invaded the province of the Judicial Branch by authorizing victims of terrorism to seize certain central bank assets. The ruling allowed nearly $2 billion to be distributed to Iran’s victims. Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. (2014) – The Supreme Court’s decision in this case confirmed the availability of broad discovery to enforce judgments against foreign sovereigns, empowering creditors to seek information concerning the debtor nation’s assets anywhere in the world. Sports and Gaming Led the effort of the Governor of New Jersey to legalize sports wagering in the State, culminating in the Supreme Court’s “historic decision” (Sports Illustrated) in Murphy v. NCAA that struck down the federal law that had prohibited states other than Nevada from legalizing sports betting. By establishing that the federal government has no power to “dictate what a state legislature may and may not do,” this “landmark ruling” (USA Today) safeguards the power of States to govern themselves and cleared the path for States across the country to legalize sports wagering. Represented the technology provider for the internet-based operations of the New Hampshire Lottery, and secured a judgment that the Wire Act covered only sports betting, and successfully defended that judgment on appeal. The ruling safeguarded “the entire online gambling industry as well as multi-state lotteries such as Powerball” (Am Law Litigation Daily) from an arbitrary change in government policy.","searchable_name":"Matthew D. McGill (Matt)","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":444450,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2728,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmelia Medina represents\u0026nbsp;corporations, nonprofit organizations,\u0026nbsp;and board committees in major\u0026nbsp;investigations and disputes with government authorities.\u0026nbsp; A\u0026nbsp;partner in\u0026nbsp;King \u0026amp; Spalding's \u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e Band 1-ranked practice in Corporate Crime \u0026amp; Investigations, Amelia also specializes in litigation\u0026nbsp;involving\u0026nbsp;civil fraud,\u0026nbsp;national security, the\u0026nbsp;False Claims Act and \u003cem\u003equi tam \u003c/em\u003ewhistleblowers. Executives in regulated industries -- especially\u0026nbsp;life sciences, healthcare,\u0026nbsp;defense, technology, financial services, artificial intelligence, and government contracting --\u0026nbsp;turn to Amelia for her current insights about\u0026nbsp;domestic and\u0026nbsp;international law enforcement trends.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Amelia served as Deputy Chief of Staff to the Director of the FBI, and as Senior Counsel to the U.S. Deputy Attorney General (DAG) at the Department of Justice.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;She also served as a federal criminal prosecutor\u0026nbsp;in the Financial Crimes \u0026amp; Public Corruption Unit of the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the FBI, Amelia advised the Director and FBI leadership on all aspects of\u0026nbsp;investigations regarding complex financial fraud, healthcare fraud, procurement fraud and collusion,\u0026nbsp;trade sanctions and export controls,\u0026nbsp;cyber and security-related critical incidents, official corruption, counterintelligence, and issues before the National Security Council.\u0026nbsp; Amelia also prepared and advised\u0026nbsp;the FBI Director during numerous congressional hearings, including\u0026nbsp;at\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;members only\u0026rdquo; classified briefings to the full U.S. Congress.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs Senior Counsel in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General from 2017-2018, Amelia managed a department-wide portfolio of corporate enforcement priorities, compliance initiatives, and\u0026nbsp;case-specific issues arising across Main Justice divisions and U.S. Attorneys\u0026rsquo; Offices, as well as multi-agency efforts with SEC, CFTC,\u0026nbsp;DHS, HHS, FDA,\u0026nbsp;and various agency Offices of Inspector General.\u0026nbsp; Amelia served as the first Chair of the Corporate Enforcement \u0026amp; Accountability Working Group, a leadership committee responsible for guiding the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s strategy and policies to combat corporate criminal and civil fraud nationwide. She played an integral part in the development and implementation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Corporate Enforcement Policy and served as the principal staff counselor to the DAG on approvals of corporate compliance monitorships.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn private practice, Amelia is experienced in steering responses to oversight requests by\u0026nbsp;congressional committees in the U.S. House and Senate. She also\u0026nbsp;prepares business leaders to give testimony at televised hearings before federal\u0026nbsp;and state legislative bodies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmelia\u0026nbsp;is a member of the invitation-only Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court for\u0026nbsp;white collar practitioners in Washington, D.C. She serves on the boards of the Atlanta Police Foundation and The Goizueta Foundation.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmelia\u0026nbsp;graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton University, with a degree from the School of Public \u0026amp; International Affairs.\u0026nbsp; She holds a J.D. from Yale Law School and was a member of The Yale Law Journal.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"amelia-medina","email":"amedina@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 202 900 0822","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":110,"guid":"110.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":687,"guid":"687.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1147,"guid":"1147.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1715,"guid":"1715.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Medina","nick_name":"Amelia","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Jose A. Cabranes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","years_held":"2010-2011"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Michael M. Baylson, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania","years_held":"2011-2012"}],"first_name":"Amelia","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2605,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Selected for the White Collar Crime Editorial Advisory Board","detail":"Law360, 2024"},{"title":"Recommended nationally for Government: State Attorneys General","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmelia Medina represents\u0026nbsp;corporations, nonprofit organizations,\u0026nbsp;and board committees in major\u0026nbsp;investigations and disputes with government authorities.\u0026nbsp; A\u0026nbsp;partner in\u0026nbsp;King \u0026amp; Spalding's \u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e Band 1-ranked practice in Corporate Crime \u0026amp; Investigations, Amelia also specializes in litigation\u0026nbsp;involving\u0026nbsp;civil fraud,\u0026nbsp;national security, the\u0026nbsp;False Claims Act and \u003cem\u003equi tam \u003c/em\u003ewhistleblowers. Executives in regulated industries -- especially\u0026nbsp;life sciences, healthcare,\u0026nbsp;defense, technology, financial services, artificial intelligence, and government contracting --\u0026nbsp;turn to Amelia for her current insights about\u0026nbsp;domestic and\u0026nbsp;international law enforcement trends.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Amelia served as Deputy Chief of Staff to the Director of the FBI, and as Senior Counsel to the U.S. Deputy Attorney General (DAG) at the Department of Justice.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;She also served as a federal criminal prosecutor\u0026nbsp;in the Financial Crimes \u0026amp; Public Corruption Unit of the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the FBI, Amelia advised the Director and FBI leadership on all aspects of\u0026nbsp;investigations regarding complex financial fraud, healthcare fraud, procurement fraud and collusion,\u0026nbsp;trade sanctions and export controls,\u0026nbsp;cyber and security-related critical incidents, official corruption, counterintelligence, and issues before the National Security Council.\u0026nbsp; Amelia also prepared and advised\u0026nbsp;the FBI Director during numerous congressional hearings, including\u0026nbsp;at\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;members only\u0026rdquo; classified briefings to the full U.S. Congress.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs Senior Counsel in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General from 2017-2018, Amelia managed a department-wide portfolio of corporate enforcement priorities, compliance initiatives, and\u0026nbsp;case-specific issues arising across Main Justice divisions and U.S. Attorneys\u0026rsquo; Offices, as well as multi-agency efforts with SEC, CFTC,\u0026nbsp;DHS, HHS, FDA,\u0026nbsp;and various agency Offices of Inspector General.\u0026nbsp; Amelia served as the first Chair of the Corporate Enforcement \u0026amp; Accountability Working Group, a leadership committee responsible for guiding the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s strategy and policies to combat corporate criminal and civil fraud nationwide. She played an integral part in the development and implementation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Corporate Enforcement Policy and served as the principal staff counselor to the DAG on approvals of corporate compliance monitorships.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn private practice, Amelia is experienced in steering responses to oversight requests by\u0026nbsp;congressional committees in the U.S. House and Senate. She also\u0026nbsp;prepares business leaders to give testimony at televised hearings before federal\u0026nbsp;and state legislative bodies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmelia\u0026nbsp;is a member of the invitation-only Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court for\u0026nbsp;white collar practitioners in Washington, D.C. She serves on the boards of the Atlanta Police Foundation and The Goizueta Foundation.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmelia\u0026nbsp;graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton University, with a degree from the School of Public \u0026amp; International Affairs.\u0026nbsp; She holds a J.D. from Yale Law School and was a member of The Yale Law Journal.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Selected for the White Collar Crime Editorial Advisory Board","detail":"Law360, 2024"},{"title":"Recommended nationally for Government: State Attorneys General","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12849}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-12-18T22:13:05.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-18T22:13:05.000Z","searchable_text":"Medina{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected for the White Collar Crime Editorial Advisory Board\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended nationally for Government: State Attorneys General\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}Amelia Medina represents corporations, nonprofit organizations, and board committees in major investigations and disputes with government authorities.  A partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Chambers Band 1-ranked practice in Corporate Crime \u0026amp; Investigations, Amelia also specializes in litigation involving civil fraud, national security, the False Claims Act and qui tam whistleblowers. Executives in regulated industries -- especially life sciences, healthcare, defense, technology, financial services, artificial intelligence, and government contracting -- turn to Amelia for her current insights about domestic and international law enforcement trends.\nPrior to rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Amelia served as Deputy Chief of Staff to the Director of the FBI, and as Senior Counsel to the U.S. Deputy Attorney General (DAG) at the Department of Justice.  She also served as a federal criminal prosecutor in the Financial Crimes \u0026amp; Public Corruption Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. \nAt the FBI, Amelia advised the Director and FBI leadership on all aspects of investigations regarding complex financial fraud, healthcare fraud, procurement fraud and collusion, trade sanctions and export controls, cyber and security-related critical incidents, official corruption, counterintelligence, and issues before the National Security Council.  Amelia also prepared and advised the FBI Director during numerous congressional hearings, including at “members only” classified briefings to the full U.S. Congress. \nAs Senior Counsel in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General from 2017-2018, Amelia managed a department-wide portfolio of corporate enforcement priorities, compliance initiatives, and case-specific issues arising across Main Justice divisions and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, as well as multi-agency efforts with SEC, CFTC, DHS, HHS, FDA, and various agency Offices of Inspector General.  Amelia served as the first Chair of the Corporate Enforcement \u0026amp; Accountability Working Group, a leadership committee responsible for guiding the DOJ’s strategy and policies to combat corporate criminal and civil fraud nationwide. She played an integral part in the development and implementation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Corporate Enforcement Policy and served as the principal staff counselor to the DAG on approvals of corporate compliance monitorships.\nIn private practice, Amelia is experienced in steering responses to oversight requests by congressional committees in the U.S. House and Senate. She also prepares business leaders to give testimony at televised hearings before federal and state legislative bodies.\nAmelia is a member of the invitation-only Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court for white collar practitioners in Washington, D.C. She serves on the boards of the Atlanta Police Foundation and The Goizueta Foundation.  \nAmelia graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton University, with a degree from the School of Public \u0026amp; International Affairs.  She holds a J.D. from Yale Law School and was a member of The Yale Law Journal. Partner Selected for the White Collar Crime Editorial Advisory Board Law360, 2024 Recommended nationally for Government: State Attorneys General Legal 500, 2024 Princeton University  Yale University Yale Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia District of Columbia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia Hispanic National Bar Association Board of Directors, The Goizueta Foundation (2019-Present) Board of Directors, Latin American Association (2015-2017) Law Clerk, Jose A. Cabranes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Law Clerk, Michael M. Baylson, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania","searchable_name":"Amelia R. Medina","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":445596,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7305,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Melsheimer is the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Head of Trial and serves as the Managing Partner of the Dallas office. Described as \u0026ldquo;one of the most sought after trial lawyers in the country\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAmerican Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003epublishers, \u0026ldquo;a celebrated storyteller\u0026rdquo; by the magazine\u0026rsquo;s founder, and a \u0026ldquo;game-changing ringer\u0026rdquo; by another national legal publication, Tom is the all-too-rare true trial lawyer\u0026mdash;one who can try any case, whatever the claims or subject matter. He has remarkably broad and comprehensive jury trial experience. He has tried civil cases involving breach of contract, business torts and fraud, trade secret, patent, antitrust, securities, product liability/mass tort, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;claims. He also has tried criminal cases involving antitrust, healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, and kidnapping. Tom is the author of a widely acclaimed book on trying cases before a jury,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOn the Jury Trial\u003c/em\u003e, now in its second edition. Legendary trial lawyer and law professor Mike Tigar has called it a \u0026ldquo;book every lawyer should read.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and he is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He has been recognized for his litigation prowess by numerous outside ranking organizations and publications, including \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Chambers Global, Benchmark Litigation US, The Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;, Best Lawyers Texas, Lawdragon, Super Lawyers, \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e. In August 2024, Tom was named as a finalist for \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s 2024 National Winning Litigators award. In 2025, he made the inaugural list of \u003cem\u003eBloomberg\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Unrivaled\u0026rdquo; litigators series. Tom is one of a handful of trial lawyers in the country and the only one in Texas who has been recognized as \u0026ldquo;Band 1\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e in five different categories including Commercial Litigation, White Collar, and Intellectual Property.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom tries lawsuits in state and federal courts before both judges and juries and involving civil claims and criminal charges. On the civil side, he has tried to verdict cases involving commercial, business tort, fraud, product liability, mass tort, securities, antitrust, patent infringement, trade secrets, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e/FCA claims. On the criminal side, he has tried to verdict cases involving healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, copyright infringement, aggravated sexual assault, and kidnapping. Tom\u0026rsquo;s jury trials include successfully representing plaintiffs and defendants all over the U.S. and throughout Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining private practice, Tom served as a federal prosecutor in Dallas. He successfully prosecuted the largest bank fraud case ever undertaken in Texas, and he obtained one of the largest RICO verdicts in Texas history. The Department of Justice honored Tom as one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s top prosecutors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMajor Cases: \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Tom was lead counsel in the public corruption retrial of Dallas developer \u003cstrong\u003eRuel Hamilton\u003c/strong\u003e, who had previously been convicted and sentenced to seven years incarceration. In the retrial, following reversal of his earlier conviction, Tom obtained a complete acquittal on all charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2023, Tom was lead trial counsel in defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAlphatec\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a bitter dispute with medical device rival Nuvasive, involving allegations that Alphatec tortiously interfered with NuVasive\u0026rsquo;s distributor agreements and that it also interfered with its agreements with sales representatives in certain states. In a nearly 3-month trial in California Superior Court in San Diego, he helped achieve a resounding victory by successfully defeating NuVasive Inc.\u0026rsquo;s $49 million actual damages claim (and multiples of that in alleged punitive damages).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn August 2023, Tom led a team that prevailed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(USWS) in patent infringement litigation brought by competitor Halliburton relating to hydraulic fracturing software and methods and physical systems related to the operation of USWS\u0026rsquo;s fracturing sites. Tom won a complete defense jury verdict finding of no infringement by the client and that two asserted patents were invalid. The verdict cleared USWS of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s infringement allegations and damages demand of over $76 million.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2022, Tom represented \u003cstrong\u003eKent Thiry,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eformer CEO of Fortune 500 company DaVita, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, in a first-of-its-kind criminal antitrust case alleging horizontal market allocation in the labor market. After an eight-day trial in federal court in Colorado, the jury acquitted Thiry on all counts. Many opined the win would influence whether the Department of Justice would continue to pursue enforcement allegations in antitrust matters involving labor-market collusion and, as it turns out, the DOJ has largely abandoned this theory of prosecution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter a seven-week jury trial in 2019, for his client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDr. Nick Nicholson\u003c/strong\u003e, Tom successfully obtained the only acquittal in a 21-defendant federal healthcare fraud case involving allegations of $40 million in bribes and kickbacks. The so-called\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eForest Park\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;case was the largest healthcare fraud investigation ever undertaken by federal authorities in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebillionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC. The jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court. Tom has represented Mr. Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks, and other Cuban business interests since 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;and co-counsel from the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office helped the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eState of Texas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;secure\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ethe largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history\u003c/em\u003e. The $158 million settlement reached during trial followed claims of illegal marketing practices associated with the prescription drug Risperdal\u0026reg;.\u0026nbsp;His work in the case was featured in a 15-part series authored by acclaimed legal journalist Steven Brill and published by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHuffington Post\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 2015.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026rsquo;s $178 million jury trial win on behalf of the plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eMartin\u003c/strong\u003e in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, et al.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;included nearly $150 million in punitive damages. The jury award in the breach of fiduciary duty case was named one of the \u0026ldquo;Top Verdicts of 2009\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, in addition to being recognized as one of the year\u0026rsquo;s three largest verdicts in Texas and the year\u0026rsquo;s largest verdict in Dallas County. On four other occasions, Tom\u0026rsquo;s cases have been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNLJ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;among the nation\u0026rsquo;s top cases, including the defense of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;action involving a government contract where his clients defeated a claim of fraudulent overpayment and won their affirmative claim that they had been underpaid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a mass tort case, Tom successfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by over 12,000 plaintiffs in state and federal multi-district litigation involving bet-the-company allegations that the client\u0026rsquo;s medical device was responsible for thousands of deaths and serious injuries. The first bellwether case in state court in Massachusetts\u0026nbsp;ended in a complete defense verdict after a high-profile jury trial, leading to the bulk of the cases settling thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"tom-melsheimer","email":"tmelsheimer@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which\u0026nbsp;claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability\u0026nbsp;Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Noryian\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.T.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e et al. v. Morath, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks.\u0026nbsp;After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u0026rsquo;s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBadger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJohn Doe v. Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees to company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSEC v. Mark Cuban\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series \u0026ldquo;Nash Bridges,\u0026rdquo; in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor, and the case settled before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents\u0026rsquo; validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo\u0026rsquo;s position on willfulness in patent litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScript Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int\u0026rsquo;l, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its \u0026ldquo;Fresenius 2008K\u0026rdquo; hemodialysis machine).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008\u0026ndash;2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDeep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchroeder v. Wildenthal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI\u0026rsquo;s valuable trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel v. Samsung,\u003c/em\u003eDC-96-08262 (193rd\u0026nbsp;Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million.\u0026nbsp;The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAccolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCarreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Gary Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRadman v. Weil Gotshal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUniversal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTaco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Lipscomb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecase alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA.\u0026nbsp;Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Faulkner, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.\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":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Melsheimer","nick_name":"Thomas","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Judge Homer Thornberry, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"1986 - 1986"}],"first_name":"Thomas","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1986-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"“Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026"},{"title":"IAM Global Leader","detail":"IAM, 2021-2026"},{"title":"Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Leading Trial Lawyer”","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024"},{"title":"“100 Managing Partners you Need to Know” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Environmental Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global Litigators” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Super Lawyers, Texas","detail":"2003-2025"},{"title":"“Trials MVP”","detail":"Law360, 2024-2025"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Hall of Fame” ","detail":"D Magazine, 2022"},{"title":"“Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents","detail":"Who’s Who Legal, 2022"},{"title":"Patents Leader","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024"},{"title":"Lifetime Achievement Award","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Texas Trailblazers","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2019"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/tommelsheimer/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Melsheimer is the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Head of Trial and serves as the Managing Partner of the Dallas office. Described as \u0026ldquo;one of the most sought after trial lawyers in the country\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAmerican Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003epublishers, \u0026ldquo;a celebrated storyteller\u0026rdquo; by the magazine\u0026rsquo;s founder, and a \u0026ldquo;game-changing ringer\u0026rdquo; by another national legal publication, Tom is the all-too-rare true trial lawyer\u0026mdash;one who can try any case, whatever the claims or subject matter. He has remarkably broad and comprehensive jury trial experience. He has tried civil cases involving breach of contract, business torts and fraud, trade secret, patent, antitrust, securities, product liability/mass tort, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;claims. He also has tried criminal cases involving antitrust, healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, and kidnapping. Tom is the author of a widely acclaimed book on trying cases before a jury,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOn the Jury Trial\u003c/em\u003e, now in its second edition. Legendary trial lawyer and law professor Mike Tigar has called it a \u0026ldquo;book every lawyer should read.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and he is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He has been recognized for his litigation prowess by numerous outside ranking organizations and publications, including \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Chambers Global, Benchmark Litigation US, The Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;, Best Lawyers Texas, Lawdragon, Super Lawyers, \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e. In August 2024, Tom was named as a finalist for \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s 2024 National Winning Litigators award. In 2025, he made the inaugural list of \u003cem\u003eBloomberg\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Unrivaled\u0026rdquo; litigators series. Tom is one of a handful of trial lawyers in the country and the only one in Texas who has been recognized as \u0026ldquo;Band 1\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e in five different categories including Commercial Litigation, White Collar, and Intellectual Property.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom tries lawsuits in state and federal courts before both judges and juries and involving civil claims and criminal charges. On the civil side, he has tried to verdict cases involving commercial, business tort, fraud, product liability, mass tort, securities, antitrust, patent infringement, trade secrets, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e/FCA claims. On the criminal side, he has tried to verdict cases involving healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, copyright infringement, aggravated sexual assault, and kidnapping. Tom\u0026rsquo;s jury trials include successfully representing plaintiffs and defendants all over the U.S. and throughout Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining private practice, Tom served as a federal prosecutor in Dallas. He successfully prosecuted the largest bank fraud case ever undertaken in Texas, and he obtained one of the largest RICO verdicts in Texas history. The Department of Justice honored Tom as one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s top prosecutors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMajor Cases: \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Tom was lead counsel in the public corruption retrial of Dallas developer \u003cstrong\u003eRuel Hamilton\u003c/strong\u003e, who had previously been convicted and sentenced to seven years incarceration. In the retrial, following reversal of his earlier conviction, Tom obtained a complete acquittal on all charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2023, Tom was lead trial counsel in defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAlphatec\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a bitter dispute with medical device rival Nuvasive, involving allegations that Alphatec tortiously interfered with NuVasive\u0026rsquo;s distributor agreements and that it also interfered with its agreements with sales representatives in certain states. In a nearly 3-month trial in California Superior Court in San Diego, he helped achieve a resounding victory by successfully defeating NuVasive Inc.\u0026rsquo;s $49 million actual damages claim (and multiples of that in alleged punitive damages).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn August 2023, Tom led a team that prevailed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(USWS) in patent infringement litigation brought by competitor Halliburton relating to hydraulic fracturing software and methods and physical systems related to the operation of USWS\u0026rsquo;s fracturing sites. Tom won a complete defense jury verdict finding of no infringement by the client and that two asserted patents were invalid. The verdict cleared USWS of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s infringement allegations and damages demand of over $76 million.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2022, Tom represented \u003cstrong\u003eKent Thiry,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eformer CEO of Fortune 500 company DaVita, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, in a first-of-its-kind criminal antitrust case alleging horizontal market allocation in the labor market. After an eight-day trial in federal court in Colorado, the jury acquitted Thiry on all counts. Many opined the win would influence whether the Department of Justice would continue to pursue enforcement allegations in antitrust matters involving labor-market collusion and, as it turns out, the DOJ has largely abandoned this theory of prosecution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter a seven-week jury trial in 2019, for his client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDr. Nick Nicholson\u003c/strong\u003e, Tom successfully obtained the only acquittal in a 21-defendant federal healthcare fraud case involving allegations of $40 million in bribes and kickbacks. The so-called\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eForest Park\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;case was the largest healthcare fraud investigation ever undertaken by federal authorities in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebillionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC. The jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court. Tom has represented Mr. Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks, and other Cuban business interests since 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;and co-counsel from the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office helped the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eState of Texas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;secure\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ethe largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history\u003c/em\u003e. The $158 million settlement reached during trial followed claims of illegal marketing practices associated with the prescription drug Risperdal\u0026reg;.\u0026nbsp;His work in the case was featured in a 15-part series authored by acclaimed legal journalist Steven Brill and published by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHuffington Post\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 2015.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026rsquo;s $178 million jury trial win on behalf of the plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eMartin\u003c/strong\u003e in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, et al.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;included nearly $150 million in punitive damages. The jury award in the breach of fiduciary duty case was named one of the \u0026ldquo;Top Verdicts of 2009\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, in addition to being recognized as one of the year\u0026rsquo;s three largest verdicts in Texas and the year\u0026rsquo;s largest verdict in Dallas County. On four other occasions, Tom\u0026rsquo;s cases have been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNLJ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;among the nation\u0026rsquo;s top cases, including the defense of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;action involving a government contract where his clients defeated a claim of fraudulent overpayment and won their affirmative claim that they had been underpaid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a mass tort case, Tom successfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by over 12,000 plaintiffs in state and federal multi-district litigation involving bet-the-company allegations that the client\u0026rsquo;s medical device was responsible for thousands of deaths and serious injuries. The first bellwether case in state court in Massachusetts\u0026nbsp;ended in a complete defense verdict after a high-profile jury trial, leading to the bulk of the cases settling thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which\u0026nbsp;claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability\u0026nbsp;Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Noryian\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.T.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e et al. v. Morath, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks.\u0026nbsp;After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u0026rsquo;s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBadger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJohn Doe v. Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees to company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSEC v. Mark Cuban\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series \u0026ldquo;Nash Bridges,\u0026rdquo; in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor, and the case settled before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents\u0026rsquo; validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo\u0026rsquo;s position on willfulness in patent litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScript Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int\u0026rsquo;l, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its \u0026ldquo;Fresenius 2008K\u0026rdquo; hemodialysis machine).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008\u0026ndash;2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDeep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchroeder v. Wildenthal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI\u0026rsquo;s valuable trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel v. Samsung,\u003c/em\u003eDC-96-08262 (193rd\u0026nbsp;Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million.\u0026nbsp;The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAccolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCarreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Gary Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRadman v. Weil Gotshal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUniversal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTaco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Lipscomb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecase alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA.\u0026nbsp;Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Faulkner, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"“Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026"},{"title":"IAM Global Leader","detail":"IAM, 2021-2026"},{"title":"Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Leading Trial Lawyer”","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024"},{"title":"“100 Managing Partners you Need to Know” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Environmental Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global Litigators” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Super Lawyers, Texas","detail":"2003-2025"},{"title":"“Trials MVP”","detail":"Law360, 2024-2025"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Hall of Fame” ","detail":"D Magazine, 2022"},{"title":"“Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents","detail":"Who’s Who Legal, 2022"},{"title":"Patents Leader","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024"},{"title":"Lifetime Achievement Award","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Texas Trailblazers","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2019"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13340}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-04T22:05:21.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-04T22:05:21.000Z","searchable_text":"Melsheimer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"IAM Global Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM, 2021-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2007-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2019-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Leading Trial Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“100 Managing Partners you Need to Know” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2022-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2023-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Environmental Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Global Litigators” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2003-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Trials MVP”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2024-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyers Hall of Fame” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Patents Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lifetime Achievement Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Trailblazers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS’ fracturing sites.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al. (D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts.{{ FIELD }}In Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability Litigation (MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Noryian (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement.{{ FIELD }}E.T., et al. v. Morath, et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law.{{ FIELD }}Flypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google’s infringement.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks. After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted.{{ FIELD }}America’s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al. (Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase.{{ FIELD }}Badger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP (Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial.{{ FIELD }}John Doe v. Company, Inc. (Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney’s fees to company.{{ FIELD }}Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud.{{ FIELD }}SEC v. Mark Cuban (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing.{{ FIELD }}State of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two.{{ FIELD }}Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.{{ FIELD }}Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million.{{ FIELD }}Rysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al. (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series “Nash Bridges,” in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client’s favor, and the case settled before trial.{{ FIELD }}Martin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages.{{ FIELD }}Halo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al. (D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents’ validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo’s position on willfulness in patent litigation.{{ FIELD }}YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Amerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim.{{ FIELD }}Script Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis (S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation.{{ FIELD }}Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its “Fresenius 2008K” hemodialysis machine).{{ FIELD }}Oasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}United States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008–2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Judge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston (Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election.{{ FIELD }}Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd. (Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant’s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal.{{ FIELD }}Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict.{{ FIELD }}Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought.{{ FIELD }}Hillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Schroeder v. Wildenthal, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}In re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks (S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Alcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history.{{ FIELD }}Texas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI’s valuable trade secrets.{{ FIELD }}EPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc. (D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets.{{ FIELD }}Alcatel v. Samsung,DC-96-08262 (193rd Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million. The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms.{{ FIELD }}Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Carreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories.{{ FIELD }}Texas Instruments v. Gary Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court.{{ FIELD }}Radman v. Weil Gotshal, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}Universal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}Taco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Lipscomb (N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government.{{ FIELD }}BancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract.{{ FIELD }}DSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}U.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in qui tam case alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA. Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Faulkner, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.{{ FIELD }}Tom Melsheimer is the firm’s Global Head of Trial and serves as the Managing Partner of the Dallas office. Described as “one of the most sought after trial lawyers in the country” by American Lawyer’s publishers, “a celebrated storyteller” by the magazine’s founder, and a “game-changing ringer” by another national legal publication, Tom is the all-too-rare true trial lawyer—one who can try any case, whatever the claims or subject matter. He has remarkably broad and comprehensive jury trial experience. He has tried civil cases involving breach of contract, business torts and fraud, trade secret, patent, antitrust, securities, product liability/mass tort, and qui tam claims. He also has tried criminal cases involving antitrust, healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, and kidnapping. Tom is the author of a widely acclaimed book on trying cases before a jury, On the Jury Trial, now in its second edition. Legendary trial lawyer and law professor Mike Tigar has called it a “book every lawyer should read.” \nTom is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and he is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He has been recognized for his litigation prowess by numerous outside ranking organizations and publications, including Chambers USA, Chambers Global, Benchmark Litigation US, The Best Lawyers in America®, Best Lawyers Texas, Lawdragon, Super Lawyers, and The Legal 500 US. In August 2024, Tom was named as a finalist for The National Law Journal’s 2024 National Winning Litigators award. In 2025, he made the inaugural list of Bloomberg’s “Unrivaled” litigators series. Tom is one of a handful of trial lawyers in the country and the only one in Texas who has been recognized as “Band 1” by Chambers in five different categories including Commercial Litigation, White Collar, and Intellectual Property.\nTom tries lawsuits in state and federal courts before both judges and juries and involving civil claims and criminal charges. On the civil side, he has tried to verdict cases involving commercial, business tort, fraud, product liability, mass tort, securities, antitrust, patent infringement, trade secrets, and qui tam/FCA claims. On the criminal side, he has tried to verdict cases involving healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, copyright infringement, aggravated sexual assault, and kidnapping. Tom’s jury trials include successfully representing plaintiffs and defendants all over the U.S. and throughout Texas.\nPrior to joining private practice, Tom served as a federal prosecutor in Dallas. He successfully prosecuted the largest bank fraud case ever undertaken in Texas, and he obtained one of the largest RICO verdicts in Texas history. The Department of Justice honored Tom as one of the nation’s top prosecutors.\nMajor Cases: \nIn 2025, Tom was lead counsel in the public corruption retrial of Dallas developer Ruel Hamilton, who had previously been convicted and sentenced to seven years incarceration. In the retrial, following reversal of his earlier conviction, Tom obtained a complete acquittal on all charges.\nIn 2023, Tom was lead trial counsel in defense of Alphatec in a bitter dispute with medical device rival Nuvasive, involving allegations that Alphatec tortiously interfered with NuVasive’s distributor agreements and that it also interfered with its agreements with sales representatives in certain states. In a nearly 3-month trial in California Superior Court in San Diego, he helped achieve a resounding victory by successfully defeating NuVasive Inc.’s $49 million actual damages claim (and multiples of that in alleged punitive damages).\nIn August 2023, Tom led a team that prevailed for U.S. Well Services (USWS) in patent infringement litigation brought by competitor Halliburton relating to hydraulic fracturing software and methods and physical systems related to the operation of USWS’s fracturing sites. Tom won a complete defense jury verdict finding of no infringement by the client and that two asserted patents were invalid. The verdict cleared USWS of Halliburton’s infringement allegations and damages demand of over $76 million.\nIn 2022, Tom represented Kent Thiry, former CEO of Fortune 500 company DaVita, Inc., in a first-of-its-kind criminal antitrust case alleging horizontal market allocation in the labor market. After an eight-day trial in federal court in Colorado, the jury acquitted Thiry on all counts. Many opined the win would influence whether the Department of Justice would continue to pursue enforcement allegations in antitrust matters involving labor-market collusion and, as it turns out, the DOJ has largely abandoned this theory of prosecution.\nAfter a seven-week jury trial in 2019, for his client Dr. Nick Nicholson, Tom successfully obtained the only acquittal in a 21-defendant federal healthcare fraud case involving allegations of $40 million in bribes and kickbacks. The so-called Forest Park case was the largest healthcare fraud investigation ever undertaken by federal authorities in Texas.\nTom was lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC. The jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court. Tom has represented Mr. Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks, and other Cuban business interests since 2000.\nTom and co-counsel from the Texas Attorney General’s office helped the State of Texas secure the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history. The $158 million settlement reached during trial followed claims of illegal marketing practices associated with the prescription drug Risperdal®. His work in the case was featured in a 15-part series authored by acclaimed legal journalist Steven Brill and published by the Huffington Post in 2015.\nTom’s $178 million jury trial win on behalf of the plaintiff Martin in Martin v. NL Industries, et al., included nearly $150 million in punitive damages. The jury award in the breach of fiduciary duty case was named one of the “Top Verdicts of 2009” by The National Law Journal, in addition to being recognized as one of the year’s three largest verdicts in Texas and the year’s largest verdict in Dallas County. On four other occasions, Tom’s cases have been recognized by NLJ among the nation’s top cases, including the defense of a qui tam action involving a government contract where his clients defeated a claim of fraudulent overpayment and won their affirmative claim that they had been underpaid.\nIn a mass tort case, Tom successfully defended a healthcare company sued by over 12,000 plaintiffs in state and federal multi-district litigation involving bet-the-company allegations that the client’s medical device was responsible for thousands of deaths and serious injuries. The first bellwether case in state court in Massachusetts ended in a complete defense verdict after a high-profile jury trial, leading to the bulk of the cases settling thereafter. Partner “Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”  Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026 “Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas” D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026 IAM Global Leader IAM, 2021-2026 Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025 Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide Chambers USA, 2018-2025 Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas Chambers USA, 2018-2025 Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2007-2025 Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds Chambers USA, 2020-2025 Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations Chambers USA, 2018-2025 Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide Chambers USA, 2020-2025 Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA Chambers Global, 2019-2025 Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA Chambers Global, 2018-2025 “Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025 “Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025 “Leading Trial Lawyer” The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024 Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame” Lawdragon, 2024 “100 Managing Partners you Need to Know”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law” Lawdragon, 2022-2025 “500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2023-2025 “500 Leading Environmental Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Energy Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management” Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Global Litigators”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2025 Super Lawyers, Texas 2003-2025 “Trials MVP” Law360, 2024-2025 “Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas” D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023 “Best Lawyers Hall of Fame”  D Magazine, 2022 “Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents Who’s Who Legal, 2022 Patents Leader WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024 Lifetime Achievement Award Texas Lawyer, 2021 Texas Trailblazers Texas Lawyer, 2019 University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law School The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Texas Law Clerk, Honorable Judge Homer Thornberry, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS’ fracturing sites. U.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al. (D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts. In Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability Litigation (MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter. U.S. v. Noryian (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement. E.T., et al. v. Morath, et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law. Flypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google’s infringement. U.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks. After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted. America’s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al. (Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase. Badger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP (Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial. John Doe v. Company, Inc. (Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney’s fees to company. Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud. SEC v. Mark Cuban (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing. State of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two. Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer. Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million. Rysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al. (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series “Nash Bridges,” in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client’s favor, and the case settled before trial. Martin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages. Halo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al. (D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents’ validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo’s position on willfulness in patent litigation. YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms. Amerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim. Script Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial. U.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis (S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its “Fresenius 2008K” hemodialysis machine). Oasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial. United States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008–2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial. Judge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston (Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd. (Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant’s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal. Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict. Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought. Hillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims. Schroeder v. Wildenthal, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims. In re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks (S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims. Alcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history. Texas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI’s valuable trade secrets. EPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc. (D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets. Alcatel v. Samsung,DC-96-08262 (193rd Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million. The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms. Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial. Carreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories. Texas Instruments v. Gary Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court. Radman v. Weil Gotshal, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial. Universal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial. Taco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims. U.S. v. Lipscomb (N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government. BancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract. DSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims. U.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in qui tam case alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA. Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment. U.S. v. Faulkner, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.","searchable_name":"Thomas M. Melsheimer","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426822,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5778,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndrew Michaelson is an accomplished former prosecutor who has advised global financial institutions, Fortune 100 companies, hedge funds, and senior executives in high-stakes investigations and related civil litigation.\u0026nbsp; Andrew has secured declinations, favorable settlements, and litigation victories in a wide range of white-collar and securities-related matters.\u0026nbsp; He has deep experience in trading and markets and is co-head of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Fintech Working Group, with several notable representations concerning the development of digital asset and blockchain technology.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChambers USA has noted that Andrew is \u0026ldquo;increasingly recognized\u0026rdquo; for his work defending \u0026ldquo;companies and individuals alike\u0026rdquo; in white collar and government investigations in New York. According to Chambers, clients described Andrew as \u0026ldquo;incredibly smart and understated,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;very, very knowledgeable on regulatory matters.\u0026rdquo; He has appeared on 60 Minutes to discuss insider trading, and his prior work as a federal prosecutor was profiled in the Wall Street Journal and The New Yorker.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrew previously served in government with the SEC, Division of Enforcement, and with the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he led the Galleon insider trading investigation and prosecuted numerous securities and wire fraud cases. He served as trial counsel in U.S. v. Rajaratnam, the high-profile criminal trial resulting in the conviction of Raj Rajaratnam. Andrew has spoken about the Galleon case and federal securities law enforcement at Harvard Law School and the NYU School of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"andrew-michaelson","email":"amichaelson@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 646 244 0663","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDigital Assets / Cryptocurrencies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Ripple Labs in connection with class action litigation, in multiple federal courts across the country, concerning whether Ripple\u0026rsquo;s distributions of XRP constitute \u0026ldquo;investment contracts\u0026rdquo; subject to regulation under federal securities laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising major financial institution on application of federal banking laws and regulations to state-chartered banks and trust companies affiliated with cryptocurrency exchanges or otherwise focused on digital assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting major hedge fund in connection with internal review of trading in digital assets, to ensure compliance with federal laws and regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecurities/Commodities/Unfair Trade Practices\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting HSBC in investigations and civil litigation relating to issuance of subprime RMBS, obtaining favorable settlements of DOJ investigation under FIRREA and civil claims asserted by FHFA\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting HSBC in connection with a variety of regulatory investigations by the SEC and/or State AGs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting BNP Paribas in connection with the successful recovery of nearly $150 million from an SEC Fair Fund distribution\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a financial services company in connection with CFPB investigation relating to fee disclosures and data security\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Barclays in investigations relating to ISDAFIX, obtaining favorable settlement with CFTC and civil plaintiffs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a major ride hailing company in connection with investigations by State AGs relating to representations to investors, resulting in no action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a substantial hedge fund (\u0026gt;$20 billion in AUM) and its CEO in connection with SEC insider trading investigation, resulting in no action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Barclays in connection with CFTC investigation into potential insider trading, resulting in no action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a public, Silicon Valley-based Fintech company in connection with investigation by a State Attorney General concerning app-based securities trading.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorruption/FCPA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting NIKE in connection with DOJ investigation into corruption in NCAA basketball\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a Fortune 100 company in connection with DOJ investigation relating to bribery in South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAntitrust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting ValueAct in connection with an unprecedented antitrust litigation filed by the DOJ relating to Hart-Scott-Rodino\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Investment-Only Exemption\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Target Corp. in connection with opt-out antitrust litigation relating to a price-fixing in packaged seafood industry\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Privacy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a Fortune 100, Silicon Valley-based technology company in connection with an internal inquiry relating to data privacy controls\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndividuals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting president of public company in connection with SEC investigation into public representations regarding foreign operations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting CEO in connection with SEC investigation into accounting of purchases and sales of data\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting executive in connection with SEC FCPA investigation involving Russia, Turkey and Brazil\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting CEO in connection with internal investigation by the Board of Directors\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting numerous traders in connection with SEC and internal investigations relating to FX trading, pre-release ADRs, and other matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting trader in connection with CFTC inquiry into potential insider trading\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3470}]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1180,"guid":"1180.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":123,"guid":"123.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":18,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Michaelson","nick_name":"Andrew","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Sarah S. Vance, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana","years_held":"2002 - 2003"}],"first_name":"Andrew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2002-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations","detail":"Chambers USA, New York (2019-2022)"},{"title":"Named Up and Coming Practitioner","detail":"Chambers (2019)"},{"title":"Named New York-Metro Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (2013-2015, 2017-2019)"},{"title":"Named to 500 Leading Lawyers in America","detail":"Lawdragon"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Andrew Michaelson is a partner of our Special Matters \u0026 Government Investigations Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndrew Michaelson is an accomplished former prosecutor who has advised global financial institutions, Fortune 100 companies, hedge funds, and senior executives in high-stakes investigations and related civil litigation.\u0026nbsp; Andrew has secured declinations, favorable settlements, and litigation victories in a wide range of white-collar and securities-related matters.\u0026nbsp; He has deep experience in trading and markets and is co-head of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Fintech Working Group, with several notable representations concerning the development of digital asset and blockchain technology.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChambers USA has noted that Andrew is \u0026ldquo;increasingly recognized\u0026rdquo; for his work defending \u0026ldquo;companies and individuals alike\u0026rdquo; in white collar and government investigations in New York. According to Chambers, clients described Andrew as \u0026ldquo;incredibly smart and understated,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;very, very knowledgeable on regulatory matters.\u0026rdquo; He has appeared on 60 Minutes to discuss insider trading, and his prior work as a federal prosecutor was profiled in the Wall Street Journal and The New Yorker.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrew previously served in government with the SEC, Division of Enforcement, and with the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he led the Galleon insider trading investigation and prosecuted numerous securities and wire fraud cases. He served as trial counsel in U.S. v. Rajaratnam, the high-profile criminal trial resulting in the conviction of Raj Rajaratnam. Andrew has spoken about the Galleon case and federal securities law enforcement at Harvard Law School and the NYU School of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDigital Assets / Cryptocurrencies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Ripple Labs in connection with class action litigation, in multiple federal courts across the country, concerning whether Ripple\u0026rsquo;s distributions of XRP constitute \u0026ldquo;investment contracts\u0026rdquo; subject to regulation under federal securities laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising major financial institution on application of federal banking laws and regulations to state-chartered banks and trust companies affiliated with cryptocurrency exchanges or otherwise focused on digital assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting major hedge fund in connection with internal review of trading in digital assets, to ensure compliance with federal laws and regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecurities/Commodities/Unfair Trade Practices\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting HSBC in investigations and civil litigation relating to issuance of subprime RMBS, obtaining favorable settlements of DOJ investigation under FIRREA and civil claims asserted by FHFA\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting HSBC in connection with a variety of regulatory investigations by the SEC and/or State AGs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting BNP Paribas in connection with the successful recovery of nearly $150 million from an SEC Fair Fund distribution\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a financial services company in connection with CFPB investigation relating to fee disclosures and data security\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Barclays in investigations relating to ISDAFIX, obtaining favorable settlement with CFTC and civil plaintiffs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a major ride hailing company in connection with investigations by State AGs relating to representations to investors, resulting in no action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a substantial hedge fund (\u0026gt;$20 billion in AUM) and its CEO in connection with SEC insider trading investigation, resulting in no action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Barclays in connection with CFTC investigation into potential insider trading, resulting in no action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a public, Silicon Valley-based Fintech company in connection with investigation by a State Attorney General concerning app-based securities trading.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorruption/FCPA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting NIKE in connection with DOJ investigation into corruption in NCAA basketball\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a Fortune 100 company in connection with DOJ investigation relating to bribery in South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAntitrust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting ValueAct in connection with an unprecedented antitrust litigation filed by the DOJ relating to Hart-Scott-Rodino\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Investment-Only Exemption\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Target Corp. in connection with opt-out antitrust litigation relating to a price-fixing in packaged seafood industry\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Privacy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a Fortune 100, Silicon Valley-based technology company in connection with an internal inquiry relating to data privacy controls\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndividuals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting president of public company in connection with SEC investigation into public representations regarding foreign operations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting CEO in connection with SEC investigation into accounting of purchases and sales of data\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting executive in connection with SEC FCPA investigation involving Russia, Turkey and Brazil\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting CEO in connection with internal investigation by the Board of Directors\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting numerous traders in connection with SEC and internal investigations relating to FX trading, pre-release ADRs, and other matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting trader in connection with CFTC inquiry into potential insider trading\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations","detail":"Chambers USA, New York (2019-2022)"},{"title":"Named Up and Coming Practitioner","detail":"Chambers (2019)"},{"title":"Named New York-Metro Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (2013-2015, 2017-2019)"},{"title":"Named to 500 Leading Lawyers in America","detail":"Lawdragon"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8444}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:11.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:11.000Z","searchable_text":"Michaelson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Ranked Lawyer: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, New York (2019-2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Up and Coming Practitioner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers (2019)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named New York-Metro Super Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers (2013-2015, 2017-2019)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to 500 Leading Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon\"}{{ FIELD }}Digital Assets / Cryptocurrencies\nRepresenting Ripple Labs in connection with class action litigation, in multiple federal courts across the country, concerning whether Ripple’s distributions of XRP constitute “investment contracts” subject to regulation under federal securities laws.{{ FIELD }}Advising major financial institution on application of federal banking laws and regulations to state-chartered banks and trust companies affiliated with cryptocurrency exchanges or otherwise focused on digital assets.{{ FIELD }}Representing major hedge fund in connection with internal review of trading in digital assets, to ensure compliance with federal laws and regulation.{{ FIELD }}Securities/Commodities/Unfair Trade Practices\nRepresenting HSBC in investigations and civil litigation relating to issuance of subprime RMBS, obtaining favorable settlements of DOJ investigation under FIRREA and civil claims asserted by FHFA{{ FIELD }}Representing HSBC in connection with a variety of regulatory investigations by the SEC and/or State AGs{{ FIELD }}Representing BNP Paribas in connection with the successful recovery of nearly $150 million from an SEC Fair Fund distribution{{ FIELD }}Representing a financial services company in connection with CFPB investigation relating to fee disclosures and data security{{ FIELD }}Representing Barclays in investigations relating to ISDAFIX, obtaining favorable settlement with CFTC and civil plaintiffs{{ FIELD }}Representing a major ride hailing company in connection with investigations by State AGs relating to representations to investors, resulting in no action{{ FIELD }}Representing a substantial hedge fund (\u0026gt;$20 billion in AUM) and its CEO in connection with SEC insider trading investigation, resulting in no action{{ FIELD }}Representing Barclays in connection with CFTC investigation into potential insider trading, resulting in no action{{ FIELD }}Representing a public, Silicon Valley-based Fintech company in connection with investigation by a State Attorney General concerning app-based securities trading.{{ FIELD }}Corruption/FCPA\nRepresenting NIKE in connection with DOJ investigation into corruption in NCAA basketball{{ FIELD }}Representing a Fortune 100 company in connection with DOJ investigation relating to bribery in South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the U.S.{{ FIELD }}Antitrust\nRepresenting ValueAct in connection with an unprecedented antitrust litigation filed by the DOJ relating to Hart-Scott-Rodino’s “Investment-Only Exemption”{{ FIELD }}Representing Target Corp. in connection with opt-out antitrust litigation relating to a price-fixing in packaged seafood industry{{ FIELD }}Data Privacy\nRepresenting a Fortune 100, Silicon Valley-based technology company in connection with an internal inquiry relating to data privacy controls{{ FIELD }}Individuals\nRepresenting president of public company in connection with SEC investigation into public representations regarding foreign operations{{ FIELD }}Representing CEO in connection with SEC investigation into accounting of purchases and sales of data{{ FIELD }}Representing executive in connection with SEC FCPA investigation involving Russia, Turkey and Brazil{{ FIELD }}Representing CEO in connection with internal investigation by the Board of Directors{{ FIELD }}Representing numerous traders in connection with SEC and internal investigations relating to FX trading, pre-release ADRs, and other matters{{ FIELD }}Representing trader in connection with CFTC inquiry into potential insider trading{{ FIELD }}Andrew Michaelson is an accomplished former prosecutor who has advised global financial institutions, Fortune 100 companies, hedge funds, and senior executives in high-stakes investigations and related civil litigation.  Andrew has secured declinations, favorable settlements, and litigation victories in a wide range of white-collar and securities-related matters.  He has deep experience in trading and markets and is co-head of the firm’s Fintech Working Group, with several notable representations concerning the development of digital asset and blockchain technology. \nChambers USA has noted that Andrew is “increasingly recognized” for his work defending “companies and individuals alike” in white collar and government investigations in New York. According to Chambers, clients described Andrew as “incredibly smart and understated,” and “very, very knowledgeable on regulatory matters.” He has appeared on 60 Minutes to discuss insider trading, and his prior work as a federal prosecutor was profiled in the Wall Street Journal and The New Yorker.\nAndrew previously served in government with the SEC, Division of Enforcement, and with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he led the Galleon insider trading investigation and prosecuted numerous securities and wire fraud cases. He served as trial counsel in U.S. v. Rajaratnam, the high-profile criminal trial resulting in the conviction of Raj Rajaratnam. Andrew has spoken about the Galleon case and federal securities law enforcement at Harvard Law School and the NYU School of Law.\n  Andrew Michaelson lawyer Partner Top Ranked Lawyer: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations Chambers USA, New York (2019-2022) Named Up and Coming Practitioner Chambers (2019) Named New York-Metro Super Lawyer  Super Lawyers (2013-2015, 2017-2019) Named to 500 Leading Lawyers in America Lawdragon Princeton University  Harvard University Harvard Law School New York Law Clerk, Hon. Sarah S. Vance, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Digital Assets / Cryptocurrencies\nRepresenting Ripple Labs in connection with class action litigation, in multiple federal courts across the country, concerning whether Ripple’s distributions of XRP constitute “investment contracts” subject to regulation under federal securities laws. Advising major financial institution on application of federal banking laws and regulations to state-chartered banks and trust companies affiliated with cryptocurrency exchanges or otherwise focused on digital assets. Representing major hedge fund in connection with internal review of trading in digital assets, to ensure compliance with federal laws and regulation. Securities/Commodities/Unfair Trade Practices\nRepresenting HSBC in investigations and civil litigation relating to issuance of subprime RMBS, obtaining favorable settlements of DOJ investigation under FIRREA and civil claims asserted by FHFA Representing HSBC in connection with a variety of regulatory investigations by the SEC and/or State AGs Representing BNP Paribas in connection with the successful recovery of nearly $150 million from an SEC Fair Fund distribution Representing a financial services company in connection with CFPB investigation relating to fee disclosures and data security Representing Barclays in investigations relating to ISDAFIX, obtaining favorable settlement with CFTC and civil plaintiffs Representing a major ride hailing company in connection with investigations by State AGs relating to representations to investors, resulting in no action Representing a substantial hedge fund (\u0026gt;$20 billion in AUM) and its CEO in connection with SEC insider trading investigation, resulting in no action Representing Barclays in connection with CFTC investigation into potential insider trading, resulting in no action Representing a public, Silicon Valley-based Fintech company in connection with investigation by a State Attorney General concerning app-based securities trading. Corruption/FCPA\nRepresenting NIKE in connection with DOJ investigation into corruption in NCAA basketball Representing a Fortune 100 company in connection with DOJ investigation relating to bribery in South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East and the U.S. Antitrust\nRepresenting ValueAct in connection with an unprecedented antitrust litigation filed by the DOJ relating to Hart-Scott-Rodino’s “Investment-Only Exemption” Representing Target Corp. in connection with opt-out antitrust litigation relating to a price-fixing in packaged seafood industry Data Privacy\nRepresenting a Fortune 100, Silicon Valley-based technology company in connection with an internal inquiry relating to data privacy controls Individuals\nRepresenting president of public company in connection with SEC investigation into public representations regarding foreign operations Representing CEO in connection with SEC investigation into accounting of purchases and sales of data Representing executive in connection with SEC FCPA investigation involving Russia, Turkey and Brazil Representing CEO in connection with internal investigation by the Board of Directors Representing numerous traders in connection with SEC and internal investigations relating to FX trading, pre-release ADRs, and other matters Representing trader in connection with CFTC inquiry into potential insider trading","searchable_name":"Andrew Michaelson","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":426678,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5311,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eElizabeth Morgan represents public and private companies, as well as investment banks and investors, in a broad range of capital markets transactions, as well as on corporate governance and disclosure matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiz\u0026rsquo;s capital markets experience includes investment grade and high yield debt, sustainability-linked and green bonds, convertible notes, preferred stock, initial public offerings, secondary offerings, \u0026ldquo;shelf\u0026rdquo; offerings, \u0026ldquo;at-the-market\u0026rdquo; offerings and Rule 144A transactions, as well as private placement transactions, tender offers, exchange offers, consent solicitations and other corporate reorganization and liability management transactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiz also advises public companies and their boards of directors on corporate governance, securities law and ESG and sustainability matters, including best practices and disclosures.\u0026nbsp; Representative experience includes advising on Securities and Exchange Commission reporting requirements, proxy disclosures, stakeholder engagement, director independence, proxy advisory services, board and committee charters and governance guidelines, and disclosure controls and procedures.\u0026nbsp; Liz also advises public companies on shareholder activism, including on shareholder proposals and preparing for and responding to hedge fund and corporate governance activism.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiz\u0026rsquo;s experience also includes a variety of syndicated loan transactions, leveraged acquisition finance, mergers and acquisitions and other strategic corporate transactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiz represents companies in a variety of industries (including healthcare, retail, technology and REITs) and represents both foreign and domestic companies.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"elizabeth-morgan","email":"emorgan@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":26,"guid":"26.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":27,"guid":"27.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":29,"guid":"29.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1192,"guid":"1192.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":123,"guid":"123.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1204,"guid":"1204.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Morgan","nick_name":"Elizabeth","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Elizabeth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":512,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":null},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eElizabeth Morgan represents public and private companies, as well as investment banks and investors, in a broad range of capital markets transactions, as well as on corporate governance and disclosure matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiz\u0026rsquo;s capital markets experience includes investment grade and high yield debt, sustainability-linked and green bonds, convertible notes, preferred stock, initial public offerings, secondary offerings, \u0026ldquo;shelf\u0026rdquo; offerings, \u0026ldquo;at-the-market\u0026rdquo; offerings and Rule 144A transactions, as well as private placement transactions, tender offers, exchange offers, consent solicitations and other corporate reorganization and liability management transactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiz also advises public companies and their boards of directors on corporate governance, securities law and ESG and sustainability matters, including best practices and disclosures.\u0026nbsp; Representative experience includes advising on Securities and Exchange Commission reporting requirements, proxy disclosures, stakeholder engagement, director independence, proxy advisory services, board and committee charters and governance guidelines, and disclosure controls and procedures.\u0026nbsp; Liz also advises public companies on shareholder activism, including on shareholder proposals and preparing for and responding to hedge fund and corporate governance activism.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiz\u0026rsquo;s experience also includes a variety of syndicated loan transactions, leveraged acquisition finance, mergers and acquisitions and other strategic corporate transactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiz represents companies in a variety of industries (including healthcare, retail, technology and REITs) and represents both foreign and domestic companies.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6224}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:55:56.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:55:56.000Z","searchable_text":"Morgan{{ FIELD }}Elizabeth Morgan represents public and private companies, as well as investment banks and investors, in a broad range of capital markets transactions, as well as on corporate governance and disclosure matters.\nLiz’s capital markets experience includes investment grade and high yield debt, sustainability-linked and green bonds, convertible notes, preferred stock, initial public offerings, secondary offerings, “shelf” offerings, “at-the-market” offerings and Rule 144A transactions, as well as private placement transactions, tender offers, exchange offers, consent solicitations and other corporate reorganization and liability management transactions.\nLiz also advises public companies and their boards of directors on corporate governance, securities law and ESG and sustainability matters, including best practices and disclosures.  Representative experience includes advising on Securities and Exchange Commission reporting requirements, proxy disclosures, stakeholder engagement, director independence, proxy advisory services, board and committee charters and governance guidelines, and disclosure controls and procedures.  Liz also advises public companies on shareholder activism, including on shareholder proposals and preparing for and responding to hedge fund and corporate governance activism. \nLiz’s experience also includes a variety of syndicated loan transactions, leveraged acquisition finance, mergers and acquisitions and other strategic corporate transactions.\nLiz represents companies in a variety of industries (including healthcare, retail, technology and REITs) and represents both foreign and domestic companies. Partner Middlebury College  Cornell University Cornell Law School New York","searchable_name":"Elizabeth Morgan","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":445787,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6656,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVeronica S. Moy\u0026eacute; acts as lead counsel on highly complex matters in a wide variety of disciplines, including antitrust, intellectual property, class actions, and commercial and business disputes. She is nationally recognized for her abilities and accomplishments as a trial lawyer.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Veronica was named to the Forbes \u0026ldquo;America\u0026rsquo;s Top Lawyers\u0026rdquo; list and to the Benchmark Litigation US \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list. Veronica was named \u0026ldquo;Trial Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; by the Dallas Bar Association and to Benchmark\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 10 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list in 2022. Benchmark Litigation US also named her to its 2022 and 2023 \u0026ldquo;Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; lists. BTI Consulting named Veronica to its 2014 BTI Client Service All-Stars list, and, in 2015, to its list of Client Service All-Star MVPs. She is ranked Chambers USA Band 1 for Antitrust \u0026ndash; Texas (2010-2025) and General Commercial Litigation \u0026ndash; Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds (2021-2025). She was included on \u0026ldquo;The Defenders\u0026rdquo; list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas by the Dallas Business Journal in 2009, following the unanimous defense verdict she obtained for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry in a copyright infringement matter. She has also been named as one of The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation and Litigation \u0026ndash; Antitrust (2013-2025). Texas Lawyer named Veronica one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law in 2015, and Dallas Business Journal named her one of the leading Women in Business in North Texas in 2011. In addition, she has been recognized as one of the \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025), \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Global Litigators\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) and \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Litigators in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) by Lawdragon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVeronica previously served as general counsel of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare Group Purchasing Organization (GPO), and in that role, she had overall responsibility for all legal matters as well as for advising the company\u0026rsquo;s senior management, board of directors, and business units regarding the numerous antitrust, congressional/DOJ/HHS investigation, legislative, procurement, and compliance issues it faced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"veronica-moye","email":"vmoye@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm\u0026rsquo;s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as \u0026ldquo;the Super Bowl of Antitrust,\u0026rdquo; the Court ruled in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor on all antitrust claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging \u0026ldquo;no poach\u0026rdquo; agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company\u0026rsquo;s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University\u0026rsquo;s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his \u0026ldquo;Diary of a Mad Black Woman\u0026rdquo; film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary\u0026rsquo;s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained \u0026ldquo;prior restraint\u0026rdquo; temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor\u0026rsquo;s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor\u0026rsquo;s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country\u0026rsquo;s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Novation, the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.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":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Moyé","nick_name":"Veronica","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Veronica","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1986-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026 Commercial Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023"},{"title":"Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023"},{"title":"Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022"},{"title":"Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust","detail":"THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023"},{"title":"Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law","detail":"TEXAS LAWYER, 2015"},{"title":"Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015"},{"title":"Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP","detail":"BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015"},{"title":"Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/veronica-moy%C3%A9-bb99736/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVeronica S. Moy\u0026eacute; acts as lead counsel on highly complex matters in a wide variety of disciplines, including antitrust, intellectual property, class actions, and commercial and business disputes. She is nationally recognized for her abilities and accomplishments as a trial lawyer.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Veronica was named to the Forbes \u0026ldquo;America\u0026rsquo;s Top Lawyers\u0026rdquo; list and to the Benchmark Litigation US \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list. Veronica was named \u0026ldquo;Trial Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; by the Dallas Bar Association and to Benchmark\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 10 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list in 2022. Benchmark Litigation US also named her to its 2022 and 2023 \u0026ldquo;Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; lists. BTI Consulting named Veronica to its 2014 BTI Client Service All-Stars list, and, in 2015, to its list of Client Service All-Star MVPs. She is ranked Chambers USA Band 1 for Antitrust \u0026ndash; Texas (2010-2025) and General Commercial Litigation \u0026ndash; Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds (2021-2025). She was included on \u0026ldquo;The Defenders\u0026rdquo; list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas by the Dallas Business Journal in 2009, following the unanimous defense verdict she obtained for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry in a copyright infringement matter. She has also been named as one of The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation and Litigation \u0026ndash; Antitrust (2013-2025). Texas Lawyer named Veronica one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law in 2015, and Dallas Business Journal named her one of the leading Women in Business in North Texas in 2011. In addition, she has been recognized as one of the \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025), \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Global Litigators\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) and \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Litigators in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) by Lawdragon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVeronica previously served as general counsel of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare Group Purchasing Organization (GPO), and in that role, she had overall responsibility for all legal matters as well as for advising the company\u0026rsquo;s senior management, board of directors, and business units regarding the numerous antitrust, congressional/DOJ/HHS investigation, legislative, procurement, and compliance issues it faced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm\u0026rsquo;s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as \u0026ldquo;the Super Bowl of Antitrust,\u0026rdquo; the Court ruled in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor on all antitrust claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging \u0026ldquo;no poach\u0026rdquo; agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company\u0026rsquo;s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University\u0026rsquo;s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his \u0026ldquo;Diary of a Mad Black Woman\u0026rdquo; film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary\u0026rsquo;s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained \u0026ldquo;prior restraint\u0026rdquo; temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor\u0026rsquo;s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor\u0026rsquo;s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country\u0026rsquo;s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Novation, the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026 Commercial Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023"},{"title":"Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023"},{"title":"Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022"},{"title":"Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust","detail":"THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023"},{"title":"Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law","detail":"TEXAS LAWYER, 2015"},{"title":"Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015"},{"title":"Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP","detail":"BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015"},{"title":"Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11543}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-13T16:02:32.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-13T16:02:32.000Z","searchable_text":"Moyé{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026amp; Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LAWDRAGON, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"TEXAS LAWYER, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm’s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as “the Super Bowl of Antitrust,” the Court ruled in our client’s favor on all antitrust claims.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging “no poach” agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company’s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas.{{ FIELD }}Represented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University’s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his “Diary of a Mad Black Woman” film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary’s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained “prior restraint” temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Prosecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey.{{ FIELD }}Defended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action.{{ FIELD }}Defended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor’s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor’s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country’s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Novation, the nation’s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.{{ FIELD }}Veronica S. Moyé acts as lead counsel on highly complex matters in a wide variety of disciplines, including antitrust, intellectual property, class actions, and commercial and business disputes. She is nationally recognized for her abilities and accomplishments as a trial lawyer. \nIn 2025, Veronica was named to the Forbes “America’s Top Lawyers” list and to the Benchmark Litigation US “Top 250 Women in Litigation” list. Veronica was named “Trial Lawyer of the Year” by the Dallas Bar Association and to Benchmark’s “Top 10 Women in Litigation” list in 2022. Benchmark Litigation US also named her to its 2022 and 2023 “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” lists. BTI Consulting named Veronica to its 2014 BTI Client Service All-Stars list, and, in 2015, to its list of Client Service All-Star MVPs. She is ranked Chambers USA Band 1 for Antitrust – Texas (2010-2025) and General Commercial Litigation – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds (2021-2025). She was included on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas by the Dallas Business Journal in 2009, following the unanimous defense verdict she obtained for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry in a copyright infringement matter. She has also been named as one of The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust (2013-2025). Texas Lawyer named Veronica one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law in 2015, and Dallas Business Journal named her one of the leading Women in Business in North Texas in 2011. In addition, she has been recognized as one of the “500 Leading Lawyers in America” (2023-2025), “500 Leading Global Litigators” (2023-2025) and “500 Leading Litigators in America” (2023-2025) by Lawdragon.\nVeronica previously served as general counsel of the nation’s largest healthcare Group Purchasing Organization (GPO), and in that role, she had overall responsibility for all legal matters as well as for advising the company’s senior management, board of directors, and business units regarding the numerous antitrust, congressional/DOJ/HHS investigation, legislative, procurement, and compliance issues it faced.\n  Partner Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026amp; Commercial Litigation LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024 Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.” CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023 Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.” CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023 Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP LAWDRAGON, 2023 Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023 Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024 Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year” DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022 Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023 Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023 Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law TEXAS LAWYER, 2015 Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015 Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015 Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology  Harvard University Harvard Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan New Jersey New York Texas Dallas Bar Association Antitrust Law \u0026amp; Economics Institute, Faculty Served as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm’s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as “the Super Bowl of Antitrust,” the Court ruled in our client’s favor on all antitrust claims. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging “no poach” agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws. Lead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company’s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas. Represented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University’s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level. Lead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Lead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his “Diary of a Mad Black Woman” film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict. Lead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary’s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained “prior restraint” temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms. Prosecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action. Defended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor’s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor’s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages. Lead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country’s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms. Lead counsel for Novation, the nation’s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.","searchable_name":"Veronica Moyé","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":444003,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7088,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSean Murray is a seasoned antitrust attorney and litigator, bringing\u0026nbsp;a forward-thinking approach to a practice encompassing bet-the-company litigation, merger reviews, government investigations, and counseling.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;He has broad experience representing international\u0026nbsp;clients from a variety of industries, including financial services, pharmaceuticals, healthcare \u0026amp; medical devices, oil \u0026amp; gas and petrochemicals, food products, lab instruments, advertising technology, and telecommunications.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelect experience includes:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDefending Google in several lawsuits alleging antitrust and other claims related to Google\u0026rsquo;s digital advertising technology, including multidistrict litigation styled \u003cem\u003eIn re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 21-md-3010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.);\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDefending Pfizer in several lawsuits alleging antitrust and other claims related to Hatch-Waxman Act litigation, including \u003cem\u003eIn re Lipitor\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAntitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 12-cv-2389 (D.N.J.) and \u003cem\u003eIn re EpiPen Marketing, Sales Practices \u0026amp; Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-md-2785 (D. Kan.);\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDefending a global bank in several lawsuits alleging antitrust and other claims related to benchmark interest rates;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDefending a leading clearing broker in litigation and other matters involving antitrust and other claims related to meme-stock trading; and\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRepresenting a leading petrochemical company in connection with multijurisdictional merger compliance.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSean maintains an active pro bono practice, having represented clients in immigration, housing, and small contractual dispute matters, as well as former service members pursuing claims before the U.S. Department of Veterans\u0026rsquo; Affairs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also has prior professional experience at the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission, and, before law school, a leading economic consulting firm where he worked with economists on merger reviews and antitrust, intellectual property, and mass tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"sean-murray","email":"smurray@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Murray","nick_name":"Sean","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Sean","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":722,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2017-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":75,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSean Murray is a seasoned antitrust attorney and litigator, bringing\u0026nbsp;a forward-thinking approach to a practice encompassing bet-the-company litigation, merger reviews, government investigations, and counseling.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;He has broad experience representing international\u0026nbsp;clients from a variety of industries, including financial services, pharmaceuticals, healthcare \u0026amp; medical devices, oil \u0026amp; gas and petrochemicals, food products, lab instruments, advertising technology, and telecommunications.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSelect experience includes:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDefending Google in several lawsuits alleging antitrust and other claims related to Google\u0026rsquo;s digital advertising technology, including multidistrict litigation styled \u003cem\u003eIn re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 21-md-3010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.);\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDefending Pfizer in several lawsuits alleging antitrust and other claims related to Hatch-Waxman Act litigation, including \u003cem\u003eIn re Lipitor\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAntitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 12-cv-2389 (D.N.J.) and \u003cem\u003eIn re EpiPen Marketing, Sales Practices \u0026amp; Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-md-2785 (D. Kan.);\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDefending a global bank in several lawsuits alleging antitrust and other claims related to benchmark interest rates;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDefending a leading clearing broker in litigation and other matters involving antitrust and other claims related to meme-stock trading; and\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRepresenting a leading petrochemical company in connection with multijurisdictional merger compliance.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSean maintains an active pro bono practice, having represented clients in immigration, housing, and small contractual dispute matters, as well as former service members pursuing claims before the U.S. Department of Veterans\u0026rsquo; Affairs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also has prior professional experience at the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission, and, before law school, a leading economic consulting firm where he worked with economists on merger reviews and antitrust, intellectual property, and mass tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12797}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:34.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:34.000Z","searchable_text":"Murray{{ FIELD }}Sean Murray is a seasoned antitrust attorney and litigator, bringing a forward-thinking approach to a practice encompassing bet-the-company litigation, merger reviews, government investigations, and counseling.   He has broad experience representing international clients from a variety of industries, including financial services, pharmaceuticals, healthcare \u0026amp; medical devices, oil \u0026amp; gas and petrochemicals, food products, lab instruments, advertising technology, and telecommunications.\nSelect experience includes:\n\nDefending Google in several lawsuits alleging antitrust and other claims related to Google’s digital advertising technology, including multidistrict litigation styled In re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litig., No. 21-md-3010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.);\nDefending Pfizer in several lawsuits alleging antitrust and other claims related to Hatch-Waxman Act litigation, including In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., No. 12-cv-2389 (D.N.J.) and In re EpiPen Marketing, Sales Practices \u0026amp; Antitrust Litig., No. 17-md-2785 (D. Kan.);\nDefending a global bank in several lawsuits alleging antitrust and other claims related to benchmark interest rates;\nDefending a leading clearing broker in litigation and other matters involving antitrust and other claims related to meme-stock trading; and\nRepresenting a leading petrochemical company in connection with multijurisdictional merger compliance.\n\nSean maintains an active pro bono practice, having represented clients in immigration, housing, and small contractual dispute matters, as well as former service members pursuing claims before the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.\nHe also has prior professional experience at the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission, and, before law school, a leading economic consulting firm where he worked with economists on merger reviews and antitrust, intellectual property, and mass tort litigation. Senior Associate Vassar College  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey New Jersey New York American Bar Association","searchable_name":"Sean Murray","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":442782,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5539,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHunter McGhee is an associate with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Special Matters and Government Investigations practice.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHunter assists clients in navigating\u0026nbsp;internal and government investigations.\u0026nbsp; He has actively represented clients in matters involving the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Department of Agriculture, among others.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHunter served as a law clerk to the Honorable Thomas D. Schroeder of\u0026nbsp;the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and to the Honorable Mark J. Bennett of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u0026nbsp; He received his law degree from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where he served as an Articles Editor for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCalifornia Law Review\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Hunter earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Duke University and currently serves as co-chair of Duke's First Generation alumni group.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHunter is a proud supporter of the Firm's diversity initiatives and is a member of the Firm's LGBTQ+ Affinity Group as well as the Firm's\u0026nbsp;First Generation Professionals Affinity Group.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"hunter-mcghee","email":"hmcghee@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3747}]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":687,"guid":"687.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McGhee","nick_name":"Hunter","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Thomas D. Schroeder, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina","years_held":"2021 - 2022"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Mark Bennett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"2023 - 2024"}],"first_name":"Hunter","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2159,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2021-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Hunter McGhee is a lawyer of our Special Matters \u0026 Government Investigations Practice Group. Read more.","primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHunter McGhee is an associate with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Special Matters and Government Investigations practice.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHunter assists clients in navigating\u0026nbsp;internal and government investigations.\u0026nbsp; He has actively represented clients in matters involving the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Department of Agriculture, among others.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHunter served as a law clerk to the Honorable Thomas D. Schroeder of\u0026nbsp;the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and to the Honorable Mark J. Bennett of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u0026nbsp; He received his law degree from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where he served as an Articles Editor for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCalifornia Law Review\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Hunter earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Duke University and currently serves as co-chair of Duke's First Generation alumni group.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHunter is a proud supporter of the Firm's diversity initiatives and is a member of the Firm's LGBTQ+ Affinity Group as well as the Firm's\u0026nbsp;First Generation Professionals Affinity Group.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10125}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:09.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:09.000Z","searchable_text":"McGhee{{ FIELD }}Hunter McGhee is an associate with King \u0026amp; Spalding's Special Matters and Government Investigations practice.  \nHunter assists clients in navigating internal and government investigations.  He has actively represented clients in matters involving the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Department of Agriculture, among others.  \nHunter served as a law clerk to the Honorable Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and to the Honorable Mark J. Bennett of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  He received his law degree from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where he served as an Articles Editor for the California Law Review.  Hunter earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Duke University and currently serves as co-chair of Duke's First Generation alumni group.  \nHunter is a proud supporter of the Firm's diversity initiatives and is a member of the Firm's LGBTQ+ Affinity Group as well as the Firm's First Generation Professionals Affinity Group. Hunter McGhee lawyer Associate Duke University Duke University School of Law University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley, School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Georgia International Association of Privacy Professionals Law Clerk, Hon. Thomas D. Schroeder, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina Law Clerk, Hon. Mark Bennett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","searchable_name":"Hunter McGhee","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":442928,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6938,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGrace Miller focuses her practice on high-stakes, complex litigation. She represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad range of industries, including pharmaceuticals, technology, and finance. Grace has experience litigating in state and federal courts, as well as before arbitration tribunals, in matters involving contracts, mass torts, and other commercial disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"grace-miller","email":"gmiller@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Miller","nick_name":"Grace","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Grace","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2237,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2021-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ed Mendrzycki Essay Contest Winner","detail":"ABA, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGrace Miller focuses her practice on high-stakes, complex litigation. She represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad range of industries, including pharmaceuticals, technology, and finance. Grace has experience litigating in state and federal courts, as well as before arbitration tribunals, in matters involving contracts, mass torts, and other commercial disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Ed Mendrzycki Essay Contest Winner","detail":"ABA, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12631}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-17T17:32:06.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-17T17:32:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Miller{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ed Mendrzycki Essay Contest Winner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"ABA, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Grace Miller focuses her practice on high-stakes, complex litigation. She represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad range of industries, including pharmaceuticals, technology, and finance. Grace has experience litigating in state and federal courts, as well as before arbitration tribunals, in matters involving contracts, mass torts, and other commercial disputes. Associate Ed Mendrzycki Essay Contest Winner ABA, 2020 University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York California Nevada New York","searchable_name":"Grace Miller","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}]}}