{"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":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":null,"value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"13","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"M","per_page":12,"people":[{"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":442384,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":966,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Markus focuses on U.S. federal and state regulation of drugs, biologics, biotechnology and related products. As a partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice and Deputy Practice Group Leader, Chris represents clients in a range of regulatory strategy and compliance evaluations, enforcement matters, and business transactions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris represents drug, biologic and other healthcare products companies and investors with compliance and enforcement under the Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and related state agencies such as Boards of Pharmacy. She also represents clients in business transactions, including strategic planning, due diligence and assessment, that involve product development and approval, safety, labeling, marketing and advertising, manufacturing and supply chain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on her experience, Chris was chosen to serve as the legal member of the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Pediatric Studies conducted under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act. IOM evaluated studies of drugs and biologics performed under two statutory regimes that provide incentives and, in some instances, mandate pediatric research through the drug approval process. The Committee assessed the findings and offered recommendations and briefings to FDA and the U.S. Congress.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris has been recognized by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Consulting Group\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as a 2017 \"Client Service All-Star\" and named repeatedly as a \"Life Sciences Star\" by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLMG Life Sciences.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp; She continues to be identified as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for FDA Law, and ranked as a life sciences practitioner by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"christina-markus","email":"cmarkus@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eAdvised numerous pharmaceutical and device manufacturers and distributors on compliance with\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003estate laws\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;governing operating entity licensure (including for \"virtual\" companies), extended producer responsibility (drug and sharps take back laws) and product distribution monitoring and reporting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on range of clinical trial issues, including design, compliance and transparency disclosures.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped responses to inspectional findings and import alerts, in close collaboration with technical experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) and state-specific requirements concerning the distribution and reporting of prescription, over-the-counter, and controlled drug samples.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edozens of pharmaceutical and biological product companies\u003c/strong\u003e, and investors, on life cycle issues, including patent and market exclusivity eligibility, regulatory strategies, and transactional diligence.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped and responded to citizen petition elucidating legal and scientific concerns about FDA's proposed\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebioequivalence standards, Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay provisions\u003c/strong\u003e, and other key regulatory topics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePerformed due diligence for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eregulatory issues\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and supported negotiation for corporate licensing, M\u0026amp;A, equity investing and financial institution lending.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEvaluated\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eimpacts of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on manufacturers, distributors, and third-party logistics providers of drugs, medical devices and combination products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproduct distributors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against proposed disciplinary action by the California Board of Pharmacy; Alabama Board of Pharmacy, and other jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on the status and use of controlled substances\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eand listed chemicals\u003c/strong\u003e, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Administrative hearings concerning applicants for registration to import narcotic raw materials,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Representation of a reverse distributor before DEA and state agencies to untangle registration issues arising in a multi-faceted corporate transaction, without penalty to the acquiring company,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Applied listed chemical requirements impacting an industrial chemical importer's supply chain, and\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Facilitated DEA scheduling of a new chemical entity completing the FDA approval process.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1193,"guid":"1193.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Markus","nick_name":"Chris","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Christina","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Client Service All-Star (unprompted survey of large company corporate counsel)","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2017"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal: Life Sciences","detail":"2017-2024"},{"title":"Leading Life Sciences Lawyer","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012-2025"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America - FDA Law","detail":"Best Lawyers/US News \u0026 World Report, 2015-2026"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Markus focuses on U.S. federal and state regulation of drugs, biologics, biotechnology and related products. As a partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice and Deputy Practice Group Leader, Chris represents clients in a range of regulatory strategy and compliance evaluations, enforcement matters, and business transactions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris represents drug, biologic and other healthcare products companies and investors with compliance and enforcement under the Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and related state agencies such as Boards of Pharmacy. She also represents clients in business transactions, including strategic planning, due diligence and assessment, that involve product development and approval, safety, labeling, marketing and advertising, manufacturing and supply chain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on her experience, Chris was chosen to serve as the legal member of the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Pediatric Studies conducted under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act. IOM evaluated studies of drugs and biologics performed under two statutory regimes that provide incentives and, in some instances, mandate pediatric research through the drug approval process. The Committee assessed the findings and offered recommendations and briefings to FDA and the U.S. Congress.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris has been recognized by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Consulting Group\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as a 2017 \"Client Service All-Star\" and named repeatedly as a \"Life Sciences Star\" by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLMG Life Sciences.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp; She continues to be identified as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for FDA Law, and ranked as a life sciences practitioner by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAdvised numerous pharmaceutical and device manufacturers and distributors on compliance with\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003estate laws\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;governing operating entity licensure (including for \"virtual\" companies), extended producer responsibility (drug and sharps take back laws) and product distribution monitoring and reporting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on range of clinical trial issues, including design, compliance and transparency disclosures.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped responses to inspectional findings and import alerts, in close collaboration with technical experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) and state-specific requirements concerning the distribution and reporting of prescription, over-the-counter, and controlled drug samples.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edozens of pharmaceutical and biological product companies\u003c/strong\u003e, and investors, on life cycle issues, including patent and market exclusivity eligibility, regulatory strategies, and transactional diligence.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped and responded to citizen petition elucidating legal and scientific concerns about FDA's proposed\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebioequivalence standards, Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay provisions\u003c/strong\u003e, and other key regulatory topics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePerformed due diligence for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eregulatory issues\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and supported negotiation for corporate licensing, M\u0026amp;A, equity investing and financial institution lending.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEvaluated\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eimpacts of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on manufacturers, distributors, and third-party logistics providers of drugs, medical devices and combination products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproduct distributors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against proposed disciplinary action by the California Board of Pharmacy; Alabama Board of Pharmacy, and other jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on the status and use of controlled substances\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eand listed chemicals\u003c/strong\u003e, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Administrative hearings concerning applicants for registration to import narcotic raw materials,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Representation of a reverse distributor before DEA and state agencies to untangle registration issues arising in a multi-faceted corporate transaction, without penalty to the acquiring company,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Applied listed chemical requirements impacting an industrial chemical importer's supply chain, and\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Facilitated DEA scheduling of a new chemical entity completing the FDA approval process.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Client Service All-Star (unprompted survey of large company corporate counsel)","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2017"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal: Life Sciences","detail":"2017-2024"},{"title":"Leading Life Sciences Lawyer","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012-2025"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America - FDA Law","detail":"Best Lawyers/US News \u0026 World Report, 2015-2026"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1035}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Markus{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Client Service All-Star (unprompted survey of large company corporate counsel)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI Consulting, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal: Life Sciences\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Life Sciences Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences, 2012-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America - FDA Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers/US News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}Advised numerous pharmaceutical and device manufacturers and distributors on compliance with state laws governing operating entity licensure (including for \"virtual\" companies), extended producer responsibility (drug and sharps take back laws) and product distribution monitoring and reporting.{{ FIELD }}Advised on range of clinical trial issues, including design, compliance and transparency disclosures.{{ FIELD }}Developed responses to inspectional findings and import alerts, in close collaboration with technical experts.{{ FIELD }}Advised on the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) and state-specific requirements concerning the distribution and reporting of prescription, over-the-counter, and controlled drug samples.{{ FIELD }}Advised dozens of pharmaceutical and biological product companies, and investors, on life cycle issues, including patent and market exclusivity eligibility, regulatory strategies, and transactional diligence.{{ FIELD }}Developed and responded to citizen petition elucidating legal and scientific concerns about FDA's proposed bioequivalence standards, Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay provisions, and other key regulatory topics.{{ FIELD }}Performed due diligence for regulatory issues and supported negotiation for corporate licensing, M\u0026amp;A, equity investing and financial institution lending.{{ FIELD }}Evaluated impacts of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) on manufacturers, distributors, and third-party logistics providers of drugs, medical devices and combination products.{{ FIELD }}Defended product distributors against proposed disciplinary action by the California Board of Pharmacy; Alabama Board of Pharmacy, and other jurisdictions.{{ FIELD }}Advised on the status and use of controlled substances and listed chemicals, including:\n- Administrative hearings concerning applicants for registration to import narcotic raw materials,\n- Representation of a reverse distributor before DEA and state agencies to untangle registration issues arising in a multi-faceted corporate transaction, without penalty to the acquiring company,\n- Applied listed chemical requirements impacting an industrial chemical importer's supply chain, and\n- Facilitated DEA scheduling of a new chemical entity completing the FDA approval process.{{ FIELD }}Chris Markus focuses on U.S. federal and state regulation of drugs, biologics, biotechnology and related products. As a partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice and Deputy Practice Group Leader, Chris represents clients in a range of regulatory strategy and compliance evaluations, enforcement matters, and business transactions.\nChris represents drug, biologic and other healthcare products companies and investors with compliance and enforcement under the Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and related state agencies such as Boards of Pharmacy. She also represents clients in business transactions, including strategic planning, due diligence and assessment, that involve product development and approval, safety, labeling, marketing and advertising, manufacturing and supply chain.\nBased on her experience, Chris was chosen to serve as the legal member of the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Pediatric Studies conducted under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act. IOM evaluated studies of drugs and biologics performed under two statutory regimes that provide incentives and, in some instances, mandate pediatric research through the drug approval process. The Committee assessed the findings and offered recommendations and briefings to FDA and the U.S. Congress. \nChris has been recognized by the BTI Consulting Group as a 2017 \"Client Service All-Star\" and named repeatedly as a \"Life Sciences Star\" by LMG Life Sciences.  She continues to be identified as one of The Best Lawyers in America for FDA Law, and ranked as a life sciences practitioner by The Legal 500. Partner Client Service All-Star (unprompted survey of large company corporate counsel) BTI Consulting, 2017 Who's Who Legal: Life Sciences 2017-2024 Leading Life Sciences Lawyer LMG Life Sciences, 2012-2025 Best Lawyers in America - FDA Law Best Lawyers/US News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015-2026 College of William and Mary William \u0026amp; Mary Law School University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law District of Columbia Virginia The District of Columbia Bar Virginia State Bar Advised numerous pharmaceutical and device manufacturers and distributors on compliance with state laws governing operating entity licensure (including for \"virtual\" companies), extended producer responsibility (drug and sharps take back laws) and product distribution monitoring and reporting. Advised on range of clinical trial issues, including design, compliance and transparency disclosures. Developed responses to inspectional findings and import alerts, in close collaboration with technical experts. Advised on the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) and state-specific requirements concerning the distribution and reporting of prescription, over-the-counter, and controlled drug samples. Advised dozens of pharmaceutical and biological product companies, and investors, on life cycle issues, including patent and market exclusivity eligibility, regulatory strategies, and transactional diligence. Developed and responded to citizen petition elucidating legal and scientific concerns about FDA's proposed bioequivalence standards, Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay provisions, and other key regulatory topics. Performed due diligence for regulatory issues and supported negotiation for corporate licensing, M\u0026amp;A, equity investing and financial institution lending. Evaluated impacts of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) on manufacturers, distributors, and third-party logistics providers of drugs, medical devices and combination products. Defended product distributors against proposed disciplinary action by the California Board of Pharmacy; Alabama Board of Pharmacy, and other jurisdictions. Advised on the status and use of controlled substances and listed chemicals, including:\n- Administrative hearings concerning applicants for registration to import narcotic raw materials,\n- Representation of a reverse distributor before DEA and state agencies to untangle registration issues arising in a multi-faceted corporate transaction, without penalty to the acquiring company,\n- Applied listed chemical requirements impacting an industrial chemical importer's supply chain, and\n- Facilitated DEA scheduling of a new chemical entity completing the FDA approval process.","searchable_name":"Christina M. Markus (Chris)","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":444226,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3179,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Mattern\u0026nbsp;is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who represents technology, media, and entertainment companies in complex litigation and intellectual property matters.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid has substantial experience defending technology platforms and other companies in suits related to user content, including in copyright litigation, matters involving Section 230, the DMCA, and trademark and trade secret claims.\u0026nbsp; David has also litigated\u0026nbsp;consumer class actions, securities cases,\u0026nbsp;and constitutional matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, David was a law clerk to then-Chief Judge R. Guy Cole (Sixth Circuit). He received his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was a James Kent Scholar.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid has represented clients at trial and appeal in courts across the country. David has particular expertise in copyright law and platform defenses, including representing platforms in copyright litigation and\u0026nbsp;rate court disputes, and in defending platforms in suits related to user content and content moderation under the DMCA and Section 230.\u0026nbsp;His experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act litigation,\u0026nbsp;product liability litigation, professional liability litigation, and many other types of business litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid devotes a significant amount of time to pro bono civil rights litigation. Recent successful representations include obtaining reversal of a grant of qualified immunity to prison officials in a suit brought under Section 1983 in a case he argued in the Ninth Circuit, and in obtaining a reversal of a grant of summary judgment to prison officials on exhaustion under the PLRA in a case he argued in the Seventh Circuit.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-mattern","email":"dmattern@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-Lead Counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eTikTok \u003c/strong\u003ein nationwide litigation in which personal injuries and school districts plaintiffs allege harms arising from adolescent use of social media and entertainment platforms, including in the Social Media MDL pending in N.D. Cal. and JCCP pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Runner-up for Litigator of the Week for obtaining dismissal of school district suits in the JCCP proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel to \u003cstrong\u003eActivision Blizzard\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of harms arising from the purported addiction to video games.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-lead Counsel to the \u003cstrong\u003eRadio Music License Committee \u003c/strong\u003ein a series of rate-setting proceedings involving the performing rights\u0026rsquo; organizations ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel to \u003cstrong\u003eGoogle/YouTube\u003c/strong\u003e in a rate-setting proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to determine the rates non-interactive streaming services pay record labels, including arguing on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eGoogle/YouTube \u003c/strong\u003ein the D.C. Circuit in support of affirming the rate determination\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003elarge technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation filed against Russian cybercriminals operating a botnet that employed blockchain technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown v. Peloton\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2019).\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Represents Peloton Interactive, Inc. in suit brought by music publishers in SDNY\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhonorecords III\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2017).\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Represented Google before the Copyright Royalty Board in a proceeding to set the royalty rates paid to publishers for interactive streaming.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora v. BMI\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMember of trial team representing Pandora against Broadcast Music, Inc. in rate court proceeding under antitrust consent decree to determine public performance royalties for Pandora\u0026rsquo;s internet radio service.\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":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mattern","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Chief Judge R. Guy Cole, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","years_held":"2017 - 2018"}],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":485,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"James Kent Scholar","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Mattern\u0026nbsp;is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who represents technology, media, and entertainment companies in complex litigation and intellectual property matters.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid has substantial experience defending technology platforms and other companies in suits related to user content, including in copyright litigation, matters involving Section 230, the DMCA, and trademark and trade secret claims.\u0026nbsp; David has also litigated\u0026nbsp;consumer class actions, securities cases,\u0026nbsp;and constitutional matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, David was a law clerk to then-Chief Judge R. Guy Cole (Sixth Circuit). He received his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was a James Kent Scholar.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid has represented clients at trial and appeal in courts across the country. David has particular expertise in copyright law and platform defenses, including representing platforms in copyright litigation and\u0026nbsp;rate court disputes, and in defending platforms in suits related to user content and content moderation under the DMCA and Section 230.\u0026nbsp;His experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act litigation,\u0026nbsp;product liability litigation, professional liability litigation, and many other types of business litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid devotes a significant amount of time to pro bono civil rights litigation. Recent successful representations include obtaining reversal of a grant of qualified immunity to prison officials in a suit brought under Section 1983 in a case he argued in the Ninth Circuit, and in obtaining a reversal of a grant of summary judgment to prison officials on exhaustion under the PLRA in a case he argued in the Seventh Circuit.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-Lead Counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eTikTok \u003c/strong\u003ein nationwide litigation in which personal injuries and school districts plaintiffs allege harms arising from adolescent use of social media and entertainment platforms, including in the Social Media MDL pending in N.D. Cal. and JCCP pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Runner-up for Litigator of the Week for obtaining dismissal of school district suits in the JCCP proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel to \u003cstrong\u003eActivision Blizzard\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of harms arising from the purported addiction to video games.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-lead Counsel to the \u003cstrong\u003eRadio Music License Committee \u003c/strong\u003ein a series of rate-setting proceedings involving the performing rights\u0026rsquo; organizations ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel to \u003cstrong\u003eGoogle/YouTube\u003c/strong\u003e in a rate-setting proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to determine the rates non-interactive streaming services pay record labels, including arguing on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eGoogle/YouTube \u003c/strong\u003ein the D.C. Circuit in support of affirming the rate determination\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003elarge technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation filed against Russian cybercriminals operating a botnet that employed blockchain technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown v. Peloton\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2019).\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Represents Peloton Interactive, Inc. in suit brought by music publishers in SDNY\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhonorecords III\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2017).\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Represented Google before the Copyright Royalty Board in a proceeding to set the royalty rates paid to publishers for interactive streaming.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora v. BMI\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMember of trial team representing Pandora against Broadcast Music, Inc. in rate court proceeding under antitrust consent decree to determine public performance royalties for Pandora\u0026rsquo;s internet radio service.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9106}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-12T21:52:12.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-12T21:52:12.000Z","searchable_text":"Mattern{{ FIELD }}Co-Lead Counsel to TikTok in nationwide litigation in which personal injuries and school districts plaintiffs allege harms arising from adolescent use of social media and entertainment platforms, including in the Social Media MDL pending in N.D. Cal. and JCCP pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Runner-up for Litigator of the Week for obtaining dismissal of school district suits in the JCCP proceeding.{{ FIELD }}Counsel to Activision Blizzard in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of harms arising from the purported addiction to video games.{{ FIELD }}Co-lead Counsel to the Radio Music License Committee in a series of rate-setting proceedings involving the performing rights’ organizations ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC{{ FIELD }}Counsel to Google/YouTube in a rate-setting proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to determine the rates non-interactive streaming services pay record labels, including arguing on behalf of Google/YouTube in the D.C. Circuit in support of affirming the rate determination{{ FIELD }}Represented a large technology company in litigation filed against Russian cybercriminals operating a botnet that employed blockchain technology.{{ FIELD }}Downtown v. Peloton (2019). Represents Peloton Interactive, Inc. in suit brought by music publishers in SDNY{{ FIELD }}Phonorecords III (2017). Represented Google before the Copyright Royalty Board in a proceeding to set the royalty rates paid to publishers for interactive streaming.{{ FIELD }}Pandora v. BMI (2015). Member of trial team representing Pandora against Broadcast Music, Inc. in rate court proceeding under antitrust consent decree to determine public performance royalties for Pandora’s internet radio service.{{ FIELD }}David Mattern is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who represents technology, media, and entertainment companies in complex litigation and intellectual property matters.  \nDavid has substantial experience defending technology platforms and other companies in suits related to user content, including in copyright litigation, matters involving Section 230, the DMCA, and trademark and trade secret claims.  David has also litigated consumer class actions, securities cases, and constitutional matters.\nBefore rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, David was a law clerk to then-Chief Judge R. Guy Cole (Sixth Circuit). He received his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was a James Kent Scholar. \nDavid has represented clients at trial and appeal in courts across the country. David has particular expertise in copyright law and platform defenses, including representing platforms in copyright litigation and rate court disputes, and in defending platforms in suits related to user content and content moderation under the DMCA and Section 230. His experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act litigation, product liability litigation, professional liability litigation, and many other types of business litigation.\nDavid devotes a significant amount of time to pro bono civil rights litigation. Recent successful representations include obtaining reversal of a grant of qualified immunity to prison officials in a suit brought under Section 1983 in a case he argued in the Ninth Circuit, and in obtaining a reversal of a grant of summary judgment to prison officials on exhaustion under the PLRA in a case he argued in the Seventh Circuit.  Partner Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law Columbia University Columbia University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 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 Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia New York Judicial Clerk, Chief Judge R. Guy Cole, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Co-Lead Counsel to TikTok in nationwide litigation in which personal injuries and school districts plaintiffs allege harms arising from adolescent use of social media and entertainment platforms, including in the Social Media MDL pending in N.D. Cal. and JCCP pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Runner-up for Litigator of the Week for obtaining dismissal of school district suits in the JCCP proceeding. Counsel to Activision Blizzard in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of harms arising from the purported addiction to video games. Co-lead Counsel to the Radio Music License Committee in a series of rate-setting proceedings involving the performing rights’ organizations ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC Counsel to Google/YouTube in a rate-setting proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to determine the rates non-interactive streaming services pay record labels, including arguing on behalf of Google/YouTube in the D.C. Circuit in support of affirming the rate determination Represented a large technology company in litigation filed against Russian cybercriminals operating a botnet that employed blockchain technology. Downtown v. Peloton (2019). Represents Peloton Interactive, Inc. in suit brought by music publishers in SDNY Phonorecords III (2017). Represented Google before the Copyright Royalty Board in a proceeding to set the royalty rates paid to publishers for interactive streaming. Pandora v. BMI (2015). Member of trial team representing Pandora against Broadcast Music, Inc. in rate court proceeding under antitrust consent decree to determine public performance royalties for Pandora’s internet radio service.","searchable_name":"David P. Mattern","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":436361,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2118,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Trademark Reporter\u003c/em\u003e, having\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eserved on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie\u0026rsquo;s article, \u0026ldquo;Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody\u0026rdquo; won INTA\u0026rsquo;s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.\u0026nbsp; Katie is the author of PLI\u0026rsquo;s one volume treatise, \u0026ldquo;Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner\u0026rsquo;s Guide.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has been recognized in the 2012\u0026ndash;2016 editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her trademark work.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kathleen-mccarthy","email":"kmccarthy@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eA Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBaldino\u0026rsquo;s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eValerus Field Solutions LP\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn Site Energy Co. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMTU Onsite Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSpanx, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFritz Hansen A/S\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc\u003c/strong\u003e. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include:\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).\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":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McCarthy","nick_name":"Katie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kathleen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":485,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1986-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Named for Trademark Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023"},{"title":"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York","detail":"World Trademark Review 1000"},{"title":"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathleenekatiemccarthy/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Trademark Reporter\u003c/em\u003e, having\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eserved on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie\u0026rsquo;s article, \u0026ldquo;Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody\u0026rdquo; won INTA\u0026rsquo;s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.\u0026nbsp; Katie is the author of PLI\u0026rsquo;s one volume treatise, \u0026ldquo;Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner\u0026rsquo;s Guide.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has been recognized in the 2012\u0026ndash;2016 editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her trademark work.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eA Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBaldino\u0026rsquo;s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eValerus Field Solutions LP\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn Site Energy Co. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMTU Onsite Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSpanx, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFritz Hansen A/S\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc\u003c/strong\u003e. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include:\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Named for Trademark Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023"},{"title":"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York","detail":"World Trademark Review 1000"},{"title":"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4266},{"id":4266}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:50:27.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:50:27.000Z","searchable_text":"McCarthy{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named for Trademark Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"World Trademark Review 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}A Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v. Google Inc. et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).{{ FIELD }}Baldino’s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v. Google Inc. et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).{{ FIELD }}Valerus Field Solutions LP v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).{{ FIELD }}On Site Energy Co. v. MTU Onsite Energy (EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).{{ FIELD }}Spanx, Inc. v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).{{ FIELD }}Fritz Hansen A/S v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include: Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).{{ FIELD }}Katie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.\nDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\nKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\nKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal, The Trademark Reporter, having served on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie’s article, “Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody” won INTA’s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.  Katie is the author of PLI’s one volume treatise, “Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner’s Guide.”\nKatie has been recognized in the 2012–2016 editions of Legal 500 for her trademark work. Partner Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation Legal 500, 2022 Named for Trademark Law Best Lawyers, 2023 Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York Managing Intellectual Property, 2022 Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York World Trademark Review 1000 Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP Managing Intellectual Property, 2020 College of the Holy Cross  Columbia University Columbia University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New York New York A Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v. Google Inc. et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision). Baldino’s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v. Google Inc. et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims). Valerus Field Solutions LP v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion). On Site Energy Co. v. MTU Onsite Energy (EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense). Spanx, Inc. v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter). Fritz Hansen A/S v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution). Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include: Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).","searchable_name":"Kathleen E. McCarthy (Katie)","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":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":426357,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2817,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-mezzina","email":"pmezzina@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mezzina","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States","years_held":"2013-2014"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","years_held":"2009-2010"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court of the United States","years_held":"2018 - 2019"}],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"Alessio","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulmezzina/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":70}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:47.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:47.000Z","searchable_text":"Mezzina{{ FIELD }}As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.\nPaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\nPaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\nPaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Partner Harvard University Harvard Law School Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Law Clerk, Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States Law Clerk, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Law Clerk, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court of the United States","searchable_name":"Paul Alessio Mezzina","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":442801,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5630,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve Michaux is a Belgian- and French-qualified lawyer in the FDA and Life Sciences practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecognized as one of the most highly regarded European Union (EU) life sciences regulatory specialists, Genevi\u0026egrave;ve assists companies on a wide variety of issues under EU and national (French and Belgian) food and drug laws and regulations, with an emphasis on regulatory matters involving drugs, biologics, medical devices, cosmetics and food. She also advises life sciences clients on significant policy developments in the EU and assists with broader European and global projects.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve\u0026rsquo;s work spans matters ranging from regulatory status of borderline products, authorization procedures, life cycle management, clinical trials and investigations, labeling, advertising and promotions for all categories of products, and issues raised by specific categories of medicinal products, such as pediatric, orphan or advance therapy medicinal products. She has advised on various issues arising out of the EU Pediatric Regulation, EU Orphan Regulation, SPC and SPC extension, and ATMPs at the European and national level. She also counsels startups on establishing themselves in the EU as well as complying with advertising and scientific information rules, regulatory and legal guidance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe assists life sciences companies in forming patient/compassionate use programs in Europe, negotiating and drafting consortia related agreements, reviewing clinical trial and clinical investigation agreements, interacting with healthcare professionals in connection with advertising and promotion efforts, and product classification matters such as borderlines between drug, medical device, cosmetic and food supplement, and assistance with local authorities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve has extensive litigation experience in life science matters, including product liability and advertising and promotional activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve is recognized as one of the \"Most Highly Regarded Individuals\" in the regulatory field (Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences 2016). In the same publication, her clients reported that she has an \"unsurpassed knowledge of legal areas,\" as well as being \"extremely dedicated to the case and the client.\" She has published numerous articles on food and drug law and speaks at legal and regulatory conferences on pharmaceuticals and medical devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOctober 2019, \u0026ldquo;Are the paediatric rewards adapted? \u0026ldquo;, Clinical Research in Paediatric Psychopharmacology, P. Auby, Elsevier, 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMay 30, 2019, \u0026ldquo;The regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLexisNexis.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2017, \u0026ldquo;Pediatric Regulation \u0026ndash; A Better application for more efficient incentives,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe European Files, Medicines of the Future.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2016, \u0026ldquo;Should Anthroposophic Medicinal Products Be Regulated in Europe?\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJournal of European Health Law\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 8, 2016, \u0026ldquo;Demonstrating Significant Benefit For Orphan Medicines \u0026ndash; Is It Time For A Drastic Change?\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;EU Pediatric Rewards \u0026ndash; More Questions than Answers,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFebruary 2016, \u0026ldquo;The Need For Clarification On Post-Market Requirements For Pediatric Medicines,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 9, 2019, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eSummary of Key EUCJ Decisions\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; European Pharmaceutical Law Academy.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 5, 2019, \u0026ldquo;Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,\u0026rdquo; European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 10, 2018, \u0026ldquo;ATMP Regulatory Framework\u003cem\u003e,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eEuropean Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge, UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 2018, \u0026ldquo;Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,\u0026rdquo; European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMay 15, 2018, \u0026ldquo;International Labeling Regulatory Requirements,\u0026rdquo; co-presented with Hank Bullock, 8th Annual Medical Device \u0026amp; Diagnostic Labeling Conference in Chicago, IL.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 21, 2018, Workshop on Pediatric Regulation and SMi in London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2018, ATMPs \u0026ndash; Challenges and Promises, ERA, EU Pharmaceutical Law.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNovember 2017, Borderline issues, Congr\u0026egrave;s Parfums \u0026amp; Cosm\u0026eacute;tiques, Enjeux r\u0026eacute;glementaires, Chartres.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2017, SPCs and Regulatory Concepts, 9th SPC Forum, Riga.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2017, Pediatric Regulation, KNet365, Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge (UK).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 2017, Regulatory protections, KNet365, Life Science IP Minds 2017, London.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2017, Pediatric rewards, SMI, Pediatric Clinical Trials, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2017, Revision of the Pediatric Regulation, DIA, 29th Annual EuroMeeting, Glasgow.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNovember 2016, SPCs and Regulatory Authorizations, 7th SPC forum in Paris, France.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;Protection for Mature Product,\u0026rdquo; DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting, Hamburg.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;Interactions between regulatory and intellectual property, product liability and data privacy,\u0026rdquo; DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting in Hamburg.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"genevieve-michaux","email":"gmichaux@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1193,"guid":"1193.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Michaux","nick_name":"Geneviève","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Geneviève","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"Law Degree","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1996-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked in the Regulatory Practice","detail":"Best Lawyers Belgium, 2022"},{"title":"Global Elite Thought Leaders EMEA","detail":"WWL Life Sciences Report, 2022"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences","detail":"2011–2022"},{"title":"Excellent in Healthcare, pharmaceuticals \u0026 biotech","detail":"Leadersleague Décideurs Belgium Life Sciences guide, 2021"},{"title":"Legal 500, EU Regulatory and EU Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology","detail":"2012"},{"title":"PLC Which Lawyer?, Life Sciences","detail":"Regulatory, EU, 2012"},{"title":"de Harzen Prize (ULB) for excellence in Case Resolution over all five years of study","detail":"1988"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/geneviève-michaux-165829/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve Michaux is a Belgian- and French-qualified lawyer in the FDA and Life Sciences practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecognized as one of the most highly regarded European Union (EU) life sciences regulatory specialists, Genevi\u0026egrave;ve assists companies on a wide variety of issues under EU and national (French and Belgian) food and drug laws and regulations, with an emphasis on regulatory matters involving drugs, biologics, medical devices, cosmetics and food. She also advises life sciences clients on significant policy developments in the EU and assists with broader European and global projects.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve\u0026rsquo;s work spans matters ranging from regulatory status of borderline products, authorization procedures, life cycle management, clinical trials and investigations, labeling, advertising and promotions for all categories of products, and issues raised by specific categories of medicinal products, such as pediatric, orphan or advance therapy medicinal products. She has advised on various issues arising out of the EU Pediatric Regulation, EU Orphan Regulation, SPC and SPC extension, and ATMPs at the European and national level. She also counsels startups on establishing themselves in the EU as well as complying with advertising and scientific information rules, regulatory and legal guidance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe assists life sciences companies in forming patient/compassionate use programs in Europe, negotiating and drafting consortia related agreements, reviewing clinical trial and clinical investigation agreements, interacting with healthcare professionals in connection with advertising and promotion efforts, and product classification matters such as borderlines between drug, medical device, cosmetic and food supplement, and assistance with local authorities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve has extensive litigation experience in life science matters, including product liability and advertising and promotional activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve is recognized as one of the \"Most Highly Regarded Individuals\" in the regulatory field (Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences 2016). In the same publication, her clients reported that she has an \"unsurpassed knowledge of legal areas,\" as well as being \"extremely dedicated to the case and the client.\" She has published numerous articles on food and drug law and speaks at legal and regulatory conferences on pharmaceuticals and medical devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOctober 2019, \u0026ldquo;Are the paediatric rewards adapted? \u0026ldquo;, Clinical Research in Paediatric Psychopharmacology, P. Auby, Elsevier, 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMay 30, 2019, \u0026ldquo;The regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLexisNexis.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2017, \u0026ldquo;Pediatric Regulation \u0026ndash; A Better application for more efficient incentives,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe European Files, Medicines of the Future.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2016, \u0026ldquo;Should Anthroposophic Medicinal Products Be Regulated in Europe?\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJournal of European Health Law\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 8, 2016, \u0026ldquo;Demonstrating Significant Benefit For Orphan Medicines \u0026ndash; Is It Time For A Drastic Change?\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;EU Pediatric Rewards \u0026ndash; More Questions than Answers,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFebruary 2016, \u0026ldquo;The Need For Clarification On Post-Market Requirements For Pediatric Medicines,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 9, 2019, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eSummary of Key EUCJ Decisions\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; European Pharmaceutical Law Academy.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 5, 2019, \u0026ldquo;Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,\u0026rdquo; European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 10, 2018, \u0026ldquo;ATMP Regulatory Framework\u003cem\u003e,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eEuropean Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge, UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 2018, \u0026ldquo;Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,\u0026rdquo; European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMay 15, 2018, \u0026ldquo;International Labeling Regulatory Requirements,\u0026rdquo; co-presented with Hank Bullock, 8th Annual Medical Device \u0026amp; Diagnostic Labeling Conference in Chicago, IL.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 21, 2018, Workshop on Pediatric Regulation and SMi in London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2018, ATMPs \u0026ndash; Challenges and Promises, ERA, EU Pharmaceutical Law.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNovember 2017, Borderline issues, Congr\u0026egrave;s Parfums \u0026amp; Cosm\u0026eacute;tiques, Enjeux r\u0026eacute;glementaires, Chartres.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2017, SPCs and Regulatory Concepts, 9th SPC Forum, Riga.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2017, Pediatric Regulation, KNet365, Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge (UK).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 2017, Regulatory protections, KNet365, Life Science IP Minds 2017, London.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2017, Pediatric rewards, SMI, Pediatric Clinical Trials, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2017, Revision of the Pediatric Regulation, DIA, 29th Annual EuroMeeting, Glasgow.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNovember 2016, SPCs and Regulatory Authorizations, 7th SPC forum in Paris, France.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;Protection for Mature Product,\u0026rdquo; DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting, Hamburg.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;Interactions between regulatory and intellectual property, product liability and data privacy,\u0026rdquo; DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting in Hamburg.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked in the Regulatory Practice","detail":"Best Lawyers Belgium, 2022"},{"title":"Global Elite Thought Leaders EMEA","detail":"WWL Life Sciences Report, 2022"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences","detail":"2011–2022"},{"title":"Excellent in Healthcare, pharmaceuticals \u0026 biotech","detail":"Leadersleague Décideurs Belgium Life Sciences guide, 2021"},{"title":"Legal 500, EU Regulatory and EU Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology","detail":"2012"},{"title":"PLC Which Lawyer?, Life Sciences","detail":"Regulatory, EU, 2012"},{"title":"de Harzen Prize (ULB) for excellence in Case Resolution over all five years of study","detail":"1988"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8884}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:39.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:39.000Z","searchable_text":"Michaux{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in the Regulatory Practice\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers Belgium, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Global Elite Thought Leaders EMEA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"WWL Life Sciences Report, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2011–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Excellent in Healthcare, pharmaceuticals \u0026amp; biotech\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leadersleague Décideurs Belgium Life Sciences guide, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, EU Regulatory and EU Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"PLC Which Lawyer?, Life Sciences\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Regulatory, EU, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"de Harzen Prize (ULB) for excellence in Case Resolution over all five years of study\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"1988\"}{{ FIELD }}Geneviève Michaux is a Belgian- and French-qualified lawyer in the FDA and Life Sciences practice.\nRecognized as one of the most highly regarded European Union (EU) life sciences regulatory specialists, Geneviève assists companies on a wide variety of issues under EU and national (French and Belgian) food and drug laws and regulations, with an emphasis on regulatory matters involving drugs, biologics, medical devices, cosmetics and food. She also advises life sciences clients on significant policy developments in the EU and assists with broader European and global projects.\nGeneviève’s work spans matters ranging from regulatory status of borderline products, authorization procedures, life cycle management, clinical trials and investigations, labeling, advertising and promotions for all categories of products, and issues raised by specific categories of medicinal products, such as pediatric, orphan or advance therapy medicinal products. She has advised on various issues arising out of the EU Pediatric Regulation, EU Orphan Regulation, SPC and SPC extension, and ATMPs at the European and national level. She also counsels startups on establishing themselves in the EU as well as complying with advertising and scientific information rules, regulatory and legal guidance.\nShe assists life sciences companies in forming patient/compassionate use programs in Europe, negotiating and drafting consortia related agreements, reviewing clinical trial and clinical investigation agreements, interacting with healthcare professionals in connection with advertising and promotion efforts, and product classification matters such as borderlines between drug, medical device, cosmetic and food supplement, and assistance with local authorities.\nGeneviève has extensive litigation experience in life science matters, including product liability and advertising and promotional activities.\nGeneviève is recognized as one of the \"Most Highly Regarded Individuals\" in the regulatory field (Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences 2016). In the same publication, her clients reported that she has an \"unsurpassed knowledge of legal areas,\" as well as being \"extremely dedicated to the case and the client.\" She has published numerous articles on food and drug law and speaks at legal and regulatory conferences on pharmaceuticals and medical devices.\nPublications\n\nOctober 2019, “Are the paediatric rewards adapted? “, Clinical Research in Paediatric Psychopharmacology, P. Auby, Elsevier, 2020\nMay 30, 2019, “The regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products” LexisNexis.\nApril 2017, “Pediatric Regulation – A Better application for more efficient incentives,” The European Files, Medicines of the Future.\nSeptember 2016, “Should Anthroposophic Medicinal Products Be Regulated in Europe?” Journal of European Health Law\nJune 8, 2016, “Demonstrating Significant Benefit For Orphan Medicines – Is It Time For A Drastic Change?” Scrip Regulatory Affairs.\nApril 2016, “EU Pediatric Rewards – More Questions than Answers,” Scrip Regulatory Affairs.\nFebruary 2016, “The Need For Clarification On Post-Market Requirements For Pediatric Medicines,” Scrip Regulatory Affairs.\n\nSpeaking Engagements\n\nSeptember 9, 2019, “Summary of Key EUCJ Decisions,” European Pharmaceutical Law Academy.\nJune 5, 2019, “Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,” European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\nSeptember 10, 2018, “ATMP Regulatory Framework,” European Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge, UK.\nJune 2018, “Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,” European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\nMay 15, 2018, “International Labeling Regulatory Requirements,” co-presented with Hank Bullock, 8th Annual Medical Device \u0026amp; Diagnostic Labeling Conference in Chicago, IL.\nMarch 21, 2018, Workshop on Pediatric Regulation and SMi in London.\nMarch 2018, ATMPs – Challenges and Promises, ERA, EU Pharmaceutical Law.\nNovember 2017, Borderline issues, Congrès Parfums \u0026amp; Cosmétiques, Enjeux réglementaires, Chartres.\nSeptember 2017, SPCs and Regulatory Concepts, 9th SPC Forum, Riga.\nSeptember 2017, Pediatric Regulation, KNet365, Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge (UK).\nJune 2017, Regulatory protections, KNet365, Life Science IP Minds 2017, London. \nMarch 2017, Pediatric rewards, SMI, Pediatric Clinical Trials, London.\nMarch 2017, Revision of the Pediatric Regulation, DIA, 29th Annual EuroMeeting, Glasgow.\nNovember 2016, SPCs and Regulatory Authorizations, 7th SPC forum in Paris, France.\nApril 2016, “Protection for Mature Product,” DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting, Hamburg.\nApril 2016, “Interactions between regulatory and intellectual property, product liability and data privacy,” DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting in Hamburg.\n Partner Ranked in the Regulatory Practice Best Lawyers Belgium, 2022 Global Elite Thought Leaders EMEA WWL Life Sciences Report, 2022 Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences 2011–2022 Excellent in Healthcare, pharmaceuticals \u0026amp; biotech Leadersleague Décideurs Belgium Life Sciences guide, 2021 Legal 500, EU Regulatory and EU Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology 2012 PLC Which Lawyer?, Life Sciences Regulatory, EU, 2012 de Harzen Prize (ULB) for excellence in Case Resolution over all five years of study 1988 Harvard University Harvard Law School Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium  Paris Brussels Member of the editorial board of SCRIP Regulatory Affairs Mediator with the Brussels Business Mediation Center Member of the DIA Advisory Committee for Europe Middle East Africa Foreign Correspondent Member of the National Academy of Pharmacy (France)","searchable_name":"Geneviève Michaux","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":436375,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2542,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Mills is a senior patent litigator at King \u0026amp; Spalding with more than twenty-five years of experience.\u0026nbsp; He has led many patent litigation and enforcement matters in various venues, including U.S. district courts, the United States International Trade Commission, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.\u0026nbsp; He has also been principal negotiator in several portfolio and patent licensing transactions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff\u0026rsquo;s Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice\u0026nbsp;spans a broad spectrum of technologies, including semiconductors, satellite imaging, automotive technologies, advanced polymer technologies, Internet technologies (financial service products and online gaming), medical devices, and consumer products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Patent Claim Construction One Year after \u003cem\u003eTeva\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; Navigating Uncertainty\u0026rdquo;\u003cem\u003e, \u003c/em\u003eKing \u0026amp; Spalding Intellectual Property Newsletter\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuick Reference Guide for New PTO Proceedings under the America Invents Act\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFederal Circuit Patent Law Update \u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSupreme Court and Federal Circuit Patent Law Update\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFederal Circuit Patent Law Update\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Willful Patent Infringement and Opinions of Counsel after \u003cem\u003eIn re Seagate Technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; Association of Corporate Counsel America \u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Ethics, Discipline, Legal Malpractice and the IP Lawyer,\u0026rdquo; 43rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference, Plano, Texas\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Pre-Filing Considerations in Patent Litigation,\u0026rdquo; 17th Annual Intellectual Property Law Course, San Antonio, Texas\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has been frequently invited to speak to practitioners and industry groups in the U.S. and Europe on recent developments in U.S. patent law.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jeffrey-mills","email":"jmills@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mills","nick_name":"Jeff","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Honorable Helen W. Nies, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","years_held":"0000-0000"}],"first_name":"Jeffrey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"David","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"President, Austin Intellectual Property Law Association (2008)","detail":""},{"title":"Chair, Licensing Executives Society, Central Texas Chapter (2005-2007)","detail":""}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Mills is a senior patent litigator at King \u0026amp; Spalding with more than twenty-five years of experience.\u0026nbsp; He has led many patent litigation and enforcement matters in various venues, including U.S. district courts, the United States International Trade Commission, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.\u0026nbsp; He has also been principal negotiator in several portfolio and patent licensing transactions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff\u0026rsquo;s Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice\u0026nbsp;spans a broad spectrum of technologies, including semiconductors, satellite imaging, automotive technologies, advanced polymer technologies, Internet technologies (financial service products and online gaming), medical devices, and consumer products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Patent Claim Construction One Year after \u003cem\u003eTeva\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; Navigating Uncertainty\u0026rdquo;\u003cem\u003e, \u003c/em\u003eKing \u0026amp; Spalding Intellectual Property Newsletter\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuick Reference Guide for New PTO Proceedings under the America Invents Act\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFederal Circuit Patent Law Update \u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSupreme Court and Federal Circuit Patent Law Update\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFederal Circuit Patent Law Update\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Willful Patent Infringement and Opinions of Counsel after \u003cem\u003eIn re Seagate Technology\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; Association of Corporate Counsel America \u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Ethics, Discipline, Legal Malpractice and the IP Lawyer,\u0026rdquo; 43rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference, Plano, Texas\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Pre-Filing Considerations in Patent Litigation,\u0026rdquo; 17th Annual Intellectual Property Law Course, San Antonio, Texas\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has been frequently invited to speak to practitioners and industry groups in the U.S. and Europe on recent developments in U.S. patent law.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"President, Austin Intellectual Property Law Association (2008)","detail":""},{"title":"Chair, Licensing Executives Society, Central Texas Chapter (2005-2007)","detail":""}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4272}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:51:08.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:51:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Mills{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"President, Austin Intellectual Property Law Association (2008)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chair, Licensing Executives Society, Central Texas Chapter (2005-2007)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}Jeff Mills is a senior patent litigator at King \u0026amp; Spalding with more than twenty-five years of experience.  He has led many patent litigation and enforcement matters in various venues, including U.S. district courts, the United States International Trade Commission, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  He has also been principal negotiator in several portfolio and patent licensing transactions. \n\nJeff’s Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice spans a broad spectrum of technologies, including semiconductors, satellite imaging, automotive technologies, advanced polymer technologies, Internet technologies (financial service products and online gaming), medical devices, and consumer products.\nPublications\n\n“Patent Claim Construction One Year after Teva – Navigating Uncertainty”, King \u0026amp; Spalding Intellectual Property Newsletter\nQuick Reference Guide for New PTO Proceedings under the America Invents Act\nFederal Circuit Patent Law Update \nSupreme Court and Federal Circuit Patent Law Update\nFederal Circuit Patent Law Update\n“Willful Patent Infringement and Opinions of Counsel after In re Seagate Technology,” Association of Corporate Counsel America \n“Ethics, Discipline, Legal Malpractice and the IP Lawyer,” 43rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference, Plano, Texas\n“Pre-Filing Considerations in Patent Litigation,” 17th Annual Intellectual Property Law Course, San Antonio, Texas\n\nJeff has been frequently invited to speak to practitioners and industry groups in the U.S. and Europe on recent developments in U.S. patent law. Counsel President, Austin Intellectual Property Law Association (2008)  Chair, Licensing Executives Society, Central Texas Chapter (2005-2007)  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 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 Northern District of Illinois California District of Columbia Illinois Texas USPTO Bar #35,954 Judicial Clerk, Honorable Helen W. Nies, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","searchable_name":"Jeffrey David Mills (Jeff)","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":445711,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5799,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eEllen Min is an Associate in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding. She\u0026nbsp;specializes in intellectual property litigation with an emphasis on patents and has experience litigating cases before the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial \u0026amp; Appeal Board.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Ellen served as a law clerk to Chief Judge J. Randal Hall of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEllen earned her law degree from Georgia State University College of Law where she received the Intellectual Property Scholarship, graduated \u003cem\u003emagn\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ea cum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and was inducted into the Order of the Coif and the Order of Barristers. While attending law school, she served as President of moot court, Symposium Editor of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia State University Law Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;a pupil in the Bleckley Inn of Court, and interned for Judge\u0026nbsp;Leigh Martin May of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. She is the 2020 Thomas Tang National Moot Court Champion and 2021 ALI-CLE Scholarship \u0026amp; Leadership Award recipient. Ellen graduated with highest pro bono and public service distinction and remains committed to the firm's pro bono initiatives. She is also a member of King \u0026amp; Spalding's Asian\u0026nbsp;affinity group and actively contributes to the firm\u0026rsquo;s diversity initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEllen received her B.S. from the Georgia Institute of Technology\u0026nbsp;with High Honors.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ellen-min","email":"emin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Min","nick_name":"Ellen","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, The Honorable Leigh Martin May, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"2020 - 2020"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Honorable J. Randal Hall, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia","years_held":"2022 - 2023"}],"first_name":"Ellen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":761,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, with highest pro bono \u0026 public service distinction, Order of Barristers","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2021-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Yeseul","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eEllen Min is an Associate in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding. She\u0026nbsp;specializes in intellectual property litigation with an emphasis on patents and has experience litigating cases before the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial \u0026amp; Appeal Board.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Ellen served as a law clerk to Chief Judge J. Randal Hall of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEllen earned her law degree from Georgia State University College of Law where she received the Intellectual Property Scholarship, graduated \u003cem\u003emagn\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ea cum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and was inducted into the Order of the Coif and the Order of Barristers. While attending law school, she served as President of moot court, Symposium Editor of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia State University Law Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;a pupil in the Bleckley Inn of Court, and interned for Judge\u0026nbsp;Leigh Martin May of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. She is the 2020 Thomas Tang National Moot Court Champion and 2021 ALI-CLE Scholarship \u0026amp; Leadership Award recipient. Ellen graduated with highest pro bono and public service distinction and remains committed to the firm's pro bono initiatives. She is also a member of King \u0026amp; Spalding's Asian\u0026nbsp;affinity group and actively contributes to the firm\u0026rsquo;s diversity initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEllen received her B.S. from the Georgia Institute of Technology\u0026nbsp;with High Honors.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11798}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-10T21:58:29.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-10T21:58:29.000Z","searchable_text":"Min{{ FIELD }}Ellen Min is an Associate in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding. She specializes in intellectual property litigation with an emphasis on patents and has experience litigating cases before the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial \u0026amp; Appeal Board. \nPrior to joining the firm, Ellen served as a law clerk to Chief Judge J. Randal Hall of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.\nEllen earned her law degree from Georgia State University College of Law where she received the Intellectual Property Scholarship, graduated magna cum laude and was inducted into the Order of the Coif and the Order of Barristers. While attending law school, she served as President of moot court, Symposium Editor of the Georgia State University Law Review, a pupil in the Bleckley Inn of Court, and interned for Judge Leigh Martin May of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. She is the 2020 Thomas Tang National Moot Court Champion and 2021 ALI-CLE Scholarship \u0026amp; Leadership Award recipient. Ellen graduated with highest pro bono and public service distinction and remains committed to the firm's pro bono initiatives. She is also a member of King \u0026amp; Spalding's Asian affinity group and actively contributes to the firm’s diversity initiatives.\nEllen received her B.S. from the Georgia Institute of Technology with High Honors. Associate Georgia Institute of Technology  Georgia State University Georgia State University College of Law U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Intern, The Honorable Leigh Martin May, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Judicial Clerk, Honorable J. Randal Hall, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia","searchable_name":"Ellen Yeseul Min","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":446626,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7336,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJack is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Business Litigation group based in the Washington D.C. office who focuses his practice on intellectual property matters, including patent and trade secret disputes.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Jack was most recently a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Todd Hughes of the\u0026nbsp;U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\u0026nbsp;and an associate at Winston \u0026amp; Strawn. Jack has significant federal litigation experience, including three patent infringement jury trials and work on appeals at the Federal Circuit. Jack draws on his prior engineering experience and his degree in electrical engineering to represent both patent owners and accused infringers on intellectual property matters that cover a wide variety of technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJack obtained his J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin Law School in 2023 and holds a B.S. in Electrical\u0026nbsp;Engineering.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-myers","email":"jmyers@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Myers","nick_name":"","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Todd M. Hughes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","years_held":"2024 - 2025"}],"first_name":"Jack","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJack is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Business Litigation group based in the Washington D.C. office who focuses his practice on intellectual property matters, including patent and trade secret disputes.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Jack was most recently a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Todd Hughes of the\u0026nbsp;U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\u0026nbsp;and an associate at Winston \u0026amp; Strawn. Jack has significant federal litigation experience, including three patent infringement jury trials and work on appeals at the Federal Circuit. Jack draws on his prior engineering experience and his degree in electrical engineering to represent both patent owners and accused infringers on intellectual property matters that cover a wide variety of technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJack obtained his J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin Law School in 2023 and holds a B.S. in Electrical\u0026nbsp;Engineering.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-09T22:04:12.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-09T22:04:12.000Z","searchable_text":"Myers{{ FIELD }}Jack is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Business Litigation group based in the Washington D.C. office who focuses his practice on intellectual property matters, including patent and trade secret disputes. \nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Jack was most recently a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Todd Hughes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and an associate at Winston \u0026amp; Strawn. Jack has significant federal litigation experience, including three patent infringement jury trials and work on appeals at the Federal Circuit. Jack draws on his prior engineering experience and his degree in electrical engineering to represent both patent owners and accused infringers on intellectual property matters that cover a wide variety of technologies. \nJack obtained his J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin Law School in 2023 and holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering. Associate The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Judicial Clerk, Todd M. Hughes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","searchable_name":"Jack Myers","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}]}}