{"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":"S","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":426468,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3787,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWilliam (Bill) Sauers represents clients on high-stakes environmental matters, investigations, and technical matters.\u0026nbsp; As a partner in our Environmental, Health and Safety practice, Bill represents clients in a wide range of environmental enforcement, litigation, and compliance matters.\u0026nbsp; He also represents clients in complex litigation and counseling matters regarding trade secret, trademark, patent and copyright matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis recent environmental matters include representation of several\u0026nbsp;auto manufacturers in enforcement matters related to compliance with the Clean Air Act and related regulations before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and other federal and state agencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to extensive IP litigation and trial experience, Bill also advises clients on developing and protecting IP portfolios, including the identification, protection, licensing and enforcement of trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"william-sauers","email":"wsauers@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":252}]},"expertise":[{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sauers","nick_name":"Bill","clerkships":[],"first_name":"William","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWilliam (Bill) Sauers represents clients on high-stakes environmental matters, investigations, and technical matters.\u0026nbsp; As a partner in our Environmental, Health and Safety practice, Bill represents clients in a wide range of environmental enforcement, litigation, and compliance matters.\u0026nbsp; He also represents clients in complex litigation and counseling matters regarding trade secret, trademark, patent and copyright matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis recent environmental matters include representation of several\u0026nbsp;auto manufacturers in enforcement matters related to compliance with the Clean Air Act and related regulations before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and other federal and state agencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to extensive IP litigation and trial experience, Bill also advises clients on developing and protecting IP portfolios, including the identification, protection, licensing and enforcement of trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6104}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:53:31.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:53:31.000Z","searchable_text":"Sauers{{ FIELD }}William (Bill) Sauers represents clients on high-stakes environmental matters, investigations, and technical matters.  As a partner in our Environmental, Health and Safety practice, Bill represents clients in a wide range of environmental enforcement, litigation, and compliance matters.  He also represents clients in complex litigation and counseling matters regarding trade secret, trademark, patent and copyright matters.\nHis recent environmental matters include representation of several auto manufacturers in enforcement matters related to compliance with the Clean Air Act and related regulations before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and other federal and state agencies.\nIn addition to extensive IP litigation and trial experience, Bill also advises clients on developing and protecting IP portfolios, including the identification, protection, licensing and enforcement of trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. William J. Sauers Partner Supreme Court of the United States District of Columbia Pennsylvania","searchable_name":"William J. Sauers (Bill)","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":446393,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7345,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle\u0026rsquo;s clients describe her as their \u0026ldquo;go-to\u0026rdquo; lawyer who can handle any problem, \u0026ldquo;providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.\u0026rdquo; She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals at every juncture.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings v. Hotels.com\u003c/em\u003e, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas\u0026mdash;was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in \u003cem\u003eComcast Corp. v. Behrend\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients\u0026rsquo; businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients\u0026rsquo; objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle\u0026rsquo;s results-oriented approach:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;ve had the privilege of working with many of the country\u0026rsquo;s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms\u0026mdash;, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you\u0026rsquo;re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy\u0026mdash;whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute\u0026mdash;I couldn\u0026rsquo;t recommend her more highly.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ndash; Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"leelle-slifer","email":"lslifer@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKosmos\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSao\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTome\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eERHC\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(BVI)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLimited\u003c/em\u003e (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003eKosmos\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of S\u0026atilde;o Tom\u0026eacute; and Pr\u0026iacute;ncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTorreya Partners LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. [Confidential] \u003c/em\u003e(American Arbitration Association) \u0026ndash; Represented a \u003cstrong\u003epharmaceutical marketing firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client\u0026rsquo;s desired result.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePizza Hut Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. v. Accenture LLP \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePizza Hut\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMegan Thee Stallion v.\u003cstrong\u003e 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Harris County District Court, Texas) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003erecord label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford\u003c/strong\u003e and his \u003cstrong\u003erecord label\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D.T.X.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003einventors and patent holders\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a \u0026sect; 101 challenge\u0026mdash;the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommercial\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eZetta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eJet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar Commercial Finance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Griffin Barges \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) \u0026ndash; Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack Stone Minerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. \u003c/em\u003e(DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMinerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eChesapeake,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTotal\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eE\u0026amp;P,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDilworth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake \u003c/em\u003e(McMullen County District Court, Texas 343\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTextron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eInc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eScott\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDrennan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHyundai\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eDrennan, Hyundai\u003c/strong\u003e, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGriffith\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Waters \u003c/em\u003e(Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Slifer","nick_name":"LeElle","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"LeElle","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"B.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Under 40”","detail":"D Magazine, 2020"},{"title":"“Rising Star” ","detail":"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/leelleslifer/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle\u0026rsquo;s clients describe her as their \u0026ldquo;go-to\u0026rdquo; lawyer who can handle any problem, \u0026ldquo;providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.\u0026rdquo; She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals at every juncture.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings v. Hotels.com\u003c/em\u003e, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas\u0026mdash;was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in \u003cem\u003eComcast Corp. v. Behrend\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients\u0026rsquo; businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients\u0026rsquo; objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle\u0026rsquo;s results-oriented approach:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;ve had the privilege of working with many of the country\u0026rsquo;s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms\u0026mdash;, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you\u0026rsquo;re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy\u0026mdash;whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute\u0026mdash;I couldn\u0026rsquo;t recommend her more highly.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ndash; Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKosmos\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSao\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTome\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eERHC\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(BVI)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLimited\u003c/em\u003e (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003eKosmos\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of S\u0026atilde;o Tom\u0026eacute; and Pr\u0026iacute;ncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTorreya Partners LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. [Confidential] \u003c/em\u003e(American Arbitration Association) \u0026ndash; Represented a \u003cstrong\u003epharmaceutical marketing firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client\u0026rsquo;s desired result.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePizza Hut Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. v. Accenture LLP \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePizza Hut\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMegan Thee Stallion v.\u003cstrong\u003e 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Harris County District Court, Texas) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003erecord label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford\u003c/strong\u003e and his \u003cstrong\u003erecord label\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D.T.X.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003einventors and patent holders\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a \u0026sect; 101 challenge\u0026mdash;the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommercial\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eZetta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eJet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar Commercial Finance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Griffin Barges \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) \u0026ndash; Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack Stone Minerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. \u003c/em\u003e(DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMinerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eChesapeake,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTotal\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eE\u0026amp;P,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDilworth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake \u003c/em\u003e(McMullen County District Court, Texas 343\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTextron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eInc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eScott\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDrennan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHyundai\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eDrennan, Hyundai\u003c/strong\u003e, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGriffith\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Waters \u003c/em\u003e(Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Under 40”","detail":"D Magazine, 2020"},{"title":"“Rising Star” ","detail":"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13385}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T18:39:07.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T18:39:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Slifer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyers Under 40”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe v. ERHC Energy (BVI) Limited (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) – Represented Kosmos in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of São Tomé and Príncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Torreya Partners LLC v. [Confidential] (American Arbitration Association) – Represented a pharmaceutical marketing firm in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client’s desired result.{{ FIELD }}Pizza Hut Inc. v. Accenture LLP (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Pizza Hut in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.{{ FIELD }}Megan Thee Stallion v. 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford (Harris County District Court, Texas) – Represented record label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford and his record label in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.{{ FIELD }}DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (E.D.T.X.) – Represented inventors and patent holders in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a § 101 challenge—the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l.{{ FIELD }}Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Zetta Jet et al. (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th Judicial District) – Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys’ fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.{{ FIELD }}Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Griffin Barges (S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) – Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. (DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.{{ FIELD }}Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, Total E\u0026amp;P, et al. (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.{{ FIELD }}Dilworth v. Chesapeake (McMullen County District Court, Texas 343rd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.{{ FIELD }}Bell Textron Inc. v. Scott Drennan and Hyundai Motor America (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th Judicial District) – Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of Drennan, Hyundai, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.{{ FIELD }}Griffith v. Waters (Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) – After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.{{ FIELD }}LeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle’s clients describe her as their “go-to” lawyer who can handle any problem, “providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.” She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client’s business goals at every juncture.\nLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials—DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas—was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.\nLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients’ businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients’ objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle’s results-oriented approach:\n“I’ve had the privilege of working with many of the country’s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms—, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you’re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy—whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute—I couldn’t recommend her more highly.” – Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance. Partner Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026 Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023 Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise”  Texas Lawyer, 2024 “500 Leading Energy Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2023–2025 “Best Lawyers Under 40” D Magazine, 2020 “Rising Star”  Texas Super Lawyers, 2020 Duke University Duke University School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School Texas Board, Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School Board, Teneo Network Law Clerk, Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe v. ERHC Energy (BVI) Limited (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) – Represented Kosmos in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of São Tomé and Príncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys’ fees. Torreya Partners LLC v. [Confidential] (American Arbitration Association) – Represented a pharmaceutical marketing firm in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client’s desired result. Pizza Hut Inc. v. Accenture LLP (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Pizza Hut in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint. Megan Thee Stallion v. 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford (Harris County District Court, Texas) – Represented record label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford and his record label in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (E.D.T.X.) – Represented inventors and patent holders in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a § 101 challenge—the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Zetta Jet et al. (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th Judicial District) – Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys’ fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement. Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Griffin Barges (S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) – Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys’ fees. Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. (DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial. Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, Total E\u0026amp;P, et al. (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants. Dilworth v. Chesapeake (McMullen County District Court, Texas 343rd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family. Bell Textron Inc. v. Scott Drennan and Hyundai Motor America (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th Judicial District) – Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of Drennan, Hyundai, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement. Griffith v. Waters (Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) – After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.","searchable_name":"LeElle B. Slifer","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447572,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5046,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder is a partner\u0026nbsp;in the Washington, D.C., office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Technology, Appellate, and Administrative Law practice groups.\u0026nbsp;Jesse litigates prime time technology disputes,\u0026nbsp;including those involving AI, data privacy,\u0026nbsp;cybersecurity, intellectual property, appeals,\u0026nbsp;strategic counseling, and bespoke cross-disciplinary solutions for clients facing significant risk. No matter the issue, Jesse is always present\u0026nbsp;to help\u0026nbsp;his clients navigate\u0026nbsp;their\u0026nbsp;toughest challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJesse helps\u0026nbsp;his clients traverse\u0026nbsp;scores of pressing fronts: novel\u0026nbsp;disputes, government-facing advocacy, compliance, governance, licensing, national security, international trade, as well as practical business-minded matters to drive ROI and to galvanize KPIs. In addition to his well-established\u0026nbsp;appellate and administrative law practice, Jesse has served as lead counsel\u0026nbsp;in numerous litigations, including\u0026nbsp;high-stakes disputes touching on data privacy and cybersecurity, intellectual property, pixel technology, and generative AI.\u0026nbsp;What's more, Jesse regularly\u0026nbsp;counsels clients in highly scrutinized industries on the development and implementation of cybersecurity, privacy, and generative AI compliance programs and protocols. Moreover, Jesse has been called upon to provide forensic analysis, technical advice, and legal defense\u0026nbsp;to various clients facing exigent online attacks as well as\u0026nbsp;illicit hacking events. He also\u0026nbsp;routinely\u0026nbsp;advises clients on AI algorithm and large language model\u0026nbsp;development, data mapping,\u0026nbsp;as well as various considerations and strategies when implementing AI into existing and nascent processes. In addition, Jesse takes pride in his dedicated practice aimed at\u0026nbsp;advancing\u0026nbsp;the talents of entrepreneurs to compete and to succeed, thereby providing steady advice and pragmatic guidance\u0026nbsp;to help propel his clients forward to achieve\u0026nbsp;their business objectives.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn view\u0026nbsp;of his achievements in these areas, Jesse was nominated by his clients and received recognition by the BTI Consulting Group\u0026nbsp;as a 2025 Client Service All-Star, \"the gold standard used by corporate counsel and law firms alike to identify the attorneys delivering the absolute\u0026nbsp;best levels of client service -- better than all others.\"\u0026nbsp; During 2025 in particular, BTI noted that \"only two\u0026nbsp;attorneys earned their organic recognition from multiple clients,\" and Jesse was\u0026nbsp;one of\u0026nbsp;those two.\u0026nbsp;Building further, the University of Mississippi School of Law's Center for Air and Space Law invited Jesse to be\u0026nbsp;a 2025 and 2026 guest lecturer on cybersecurity and AI. The Sedona Conference also chose Jesse to serve on the 2026 working group on AI and trade secrets, working to build industry consensus around\u0026nbsp;these areas of growing\u0026nbsp;importance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring law school, Jesse\u0026nbsp;served as editor in chief of the flagship law review publication, graduated in\u0026nbsp;the highest percentile of his class, and was inducted into the National Order of Scribes.\u0026nbsp;He is a published author in 24\u0026nbsp;different law reviews, covering a variety of topics ranging from the Antiterrorism Act and\u0026nbsp;First Amendment to patent law\u0026nbsp;and Twenty-first Amendment.\u0026nbsp;He also serves as an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eex officio\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;member of Texas A\u0026amp;M\u0026rsquo;s faculty committee on clerkship placements.\u0026nbsp;Before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Jesse served as a term law clerk to three federal judges: the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Honorable Jorge A. Solis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore attending law school, Jesse amassed experience as an engineer at Stryker Corporation and as a commissioned military officer serving in the Air Force during the attacks on September 11, 2001. His medical-device experience covers a wide array of technology platforms for use in endoscopic procedures. And as a graduate of the Air Force Academy, Jesse is a proud combat veteran of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Multinational Corps-Iraq, and Combined Joint Task Force 7. During his service, he\u0026nbsp;received multiple medals and awards. In addition, as an extension of his sustained commitment to public service, Jesse\u0026nbsp;pioneered the firm's Armed Forces Attorney Coalition, a group whose purpose is to\u0026nbsp;promote\u0026nbsp;veteran interests\u0026nbsp;in the legal profession as well as\u0026nbsp;more broadly. Jesse also carries an abiding\u0026nbsp;dedication\u0026nbsp;to pro bono legal services, as demonstrated by his past multiyear recognition as a member of the North Carolina\u0026nbsp;Pro Bono Honor Society. Jesse is an avid runner, and he has been so for over 35\u0026nbsp;years.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jesse-snyder","email":"jsnyder@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder serves as lead counsel for litigations involving an industry-leading AI company offering products and services for legal departments worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder is lead counsel to an industry-leading jet propulsion system manufacturer for the U.S. military, advising on AI, IP, privacy, trade, antitrust, and compliance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to a pioneering and disrupting aerospace defense contractor designing pilot training devices for flight school, including achieving an agency corrective action through a successful bid protest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to one of the largest national defense aerospace companies on AI governance and compliance, data mapping, and cybersecurity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to an industry-leading space company pioneering human habitation in low-Earth orbit, advising on litigation, data security, and AI matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to numerous large-scale AI companies on governance, compliance, and international trade with an emphasis on national security.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to a prominent AI-enabled cybersecurity company on privacy, security, international trade, and intellectual property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to numerous startups on research, design, development, and patenting of AI technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to an AI-enabled pharmaceutical company on the development and patenting of cannabis-plant-material compounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse represented Google in the pathmarking copyright dispute against Oracle over use of APIs when coding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse delivered a complete defense victory for GW Pharma in a patent dispute over one of the few FDA-approved drugs containing cannabis plant materials. S\u003cem\u003eee Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharma Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 22-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse represented Equifax on various fronts during the 2017 data incident, including advising on congressional oversight, regulatory enforcement, state attorneys general litigation, and private lawsuits.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3270}]},"expertise":[{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":826,"guid":"826.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":116,"guid":"116.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1472,"guid":"1472.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Snyder","nick_name":"Jesse","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","years_held":"2016–2017"},{"name":"Law Clerk, the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","years_held":"2015–2016"},{"name":"Law Clerk, the Honorable Jorge A. Solis, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas","years_held":"2012–2013"}],"first_name":"Jesse","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1980,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2012-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"2025, 2026 Guest Lecturer on AI, IP, and Cybersecurity","detail":"University of Mississippi School of Law"},{"title":"2026 Sedona Working Group Member on AI and Trade Secrets","detail":"The Sedona Conference"},{"title":"2025 Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI Consulting Group"},{"title":"24 Scholarly Publications","detail":"Harvard, NYU, Virginia, British Journal of American Legal Studies, and More"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas"},{"title":"Past Member of the North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society","detail":"North Carolina State Bar"},{"title":"National Order of Scribes","detail":"The American Society of Legal Writers"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Jesse Snyder is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of King \u0026 Spalding. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder is a partner\u0026nbsp;in the Washington, D.C., office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Technology, Appellate, and Administrative Law practice groups.\u0026nbsp;Jesse litigates prime time technology disputes,\u0026nbsp;including those involving AI, data privacy,\u0026nbsp;cybersecurity, intellectual property, appeals,\u0026nbsp;strategic counseling, and bespoke cross-disciplinary solutions for clients facing significant risk. No matter the issue, Jesse is always present\u0026nbsp;to help\u0026nbsp;his clients navigate\u0026nbsp;their\u0026nbsp;toughest challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJesse helps\u0026nbsp;his clients traverse\u0026nbsp;scores of pressing fronts: novel\u0026nbsp;disputes, government-facing advocacy, compliance, governance, licensing, national security, international trade, as well as practical business-minded matters to drive ROI and to galvanize KPIs. In addition to his well-established\u0026nbsp;appellate and administrative law practice, Jesse has served as lead counsel\u0026nbsp;in numerous litigations, including\u0026nbsp;high-stakes disputes touching on data privacy and cybersecurity, intellectual property, pixel technology, and generative AI.\u0026nbsp;What's more, Jesse regularly\u0026nbsp;counsels clients in highly scrutinized industries on the development and implementation of cybersecurity, privacy, and generative AI compliance programs and protocols. Moreover, Jesse has been called upon to provide forensic analysis, technical advice, and legal defense\u0026nbsp;to various clients facing exigent online attacks as well as\u0026nbsp;illicit hacking events. He also\u0026nbsp;routinely\u0026nbsp;advises clients on AI algorithm and large language model\u0026nbsp;development, data mapping,\u0026nbsp;as well as various considerations and strategies when implementing AI into existing and nascent processes. In addition, Jesse takes pride in his dedicated practice aimed at\u0026nbsp;advancing\u0026nbsp;the talents of entrepreneurs to compete and to succeed, thereby providing steady advice and pragmatic guidance\u0026nbsp;to help propel his clients forward to achieve\u0026nbsp;their business objectives.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn view\u0026nbsp;of his achievements in these areas, Jesse was nominated by his clients and received recognition by the BTI Consulting Group\u0026nbsp;as a 2025 Client Service All-Star, \"the gold standard used by corporate counsel and law firms alike to identify the attorneys delivering the absolute\u0026nbsp;best levels of client service -- better than all others.\"\u0026nbsp; During 2025 in particular, BTI noted that \"only two\u0026nbsp;attorneys earned their organic recognition from multiple clients,\" and Jesse was\u0026nbsp;one of\u0026nbsp;those two.\u0026nbsp;Building further, the University of Mississippi School of Law's Center for Air and Space Law invited Jesse to be\u0026nbsp;a 2025 and 2026 guest lecturer on cybersecurity and AI. The Sedona Conference also chose Jesse to serve on the 2026 working group on AI and trade secrets, working to build industry consensus around\u0026nbsp;these areas of growing\u0026nbsp;importance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring law school, Jesse\u0026nbsp;served as editor in chief of the flagship law review publication, graduated in\u0026nbsp;the highest percentile of his class, and was inducted into the National Order of Scribes.\u0026nbsp;He is a published author in 24\u0026nbsp;different law reviews, covering a variety of topics ranging from the Antiterrorism Act and\u0026nbsp;First Amendment to patent law\u0026nbsp;and Twenty-first Amendment.\u0026nbsp;He also serves as an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eex officio\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;member of Texas A\u0026amp;M\u0026rsquo;s faculty committee on clerkship placements.\u0026nbsp;Before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Jesse served as a term law clerk to three federal judges: the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Honorable Jorge A. Solis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore attending law school, Jesse amassed experience as an engineer at Stryker Corporation and as a commissioned military officer serving in the Air Force during the attacks on September 11, 2001. His medical-device experience covers a wide array of technology platforms for use in endoscopic procedures. And as a graduate of the Air Force Academy, Jesse is a proud combat veteran of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Multinational Corps-Iraq, and Combined Joint Task Force 7. During his service, he\u0026nbsp;received multiple medals and awards. In addition, as an extension of his sustained commitment to public service, Jesse\u0026nbsp;pioneered the firm's Armed Forces Attorney Coalition, a group whose purpose is to\u0026nbsp;promote\u0026nbsp;veteran interests\u0026nbsp;in the legal profession as well as\u0026nbsp;more broadly. Jesse also carries an abiding\u0026nbsp;dedication\u0026nbsp;to pro bono legal services, as demonstrated by his past multiyear recognition as a member of the North Carolina\u0026nbsp;Pro Bono Honor Society. Jesse is an avid runner, and he has been so for over 35\u0026nbsp;years.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder serves as lead counsel for litigations involving an industry-leading AI company offering products and services for legal departments worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder is lead counsel to an industry-leading jet propulsion system manufacturer for the U.S. military, advising on AI, IP, privacy, trade, antitrust, and compliance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to a pioneering and disrupting aerospace defense contractor designing pilot training devices for flight school, including achieving an agency corrective action through a successful bid protest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to one of the largest national defense aerospace companies on AI governance and compliance, data mapping, and cybersecurity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to an industry-leading space company pioneering human habitation in low-Earth orbit, advising on litigation, data security, and AI matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to numerous large-scale AI companies on governance, compliance, and international trade with an emphasis on national security.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to a prominent AI-enabled cybersecurity company on privacy, security, international trade, and intellectual property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to numerous startups on research, design, development, and patenting of AI technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to an AI-enabled pharmaceutical company on the development and patenting of cannabis-plant-material compounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse represented Google in the pathmarking copyright dispute against Oracle over use of APIs when coding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse delivered a complete defense victory for GW Pharma in a patent dispute over one of the few FDA-approved drugs containing cannabis plant materials. S\u003cem\u003eee Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharma Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 22-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse represented Equifax on various fronts during the 2017 data incident, including advising on congressional oversight, regulatory enforcement, state attorneys general litigation, and private lawsuits.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"2025, 2026 Guest Lecturer on AI, IP, and Cybersecurity","detail":"University of Mississippi School of Law"},{"title":"2026 Sedona Working Group Member on AI and Trade Secrets","detail":"The Sedona Conference"},{"title":"2025 Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI Consulting Group"},{"title":"24 Scholarly Publications","detail":"Harvard, NYU, Virginia, British Journal of American Legal Studies, and More"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas"},{"title":"Past Member of the North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society","detail":"North Carolina State Bar"},{"title":"National Order of Scribes","detail":"The American Society of Legal Writers"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11370}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-15T20:49:35.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-15T20:49:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Snyder{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2025, 2026 Guest Lecturer on AI, IP, and Cybersecurity\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Mississippi School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2026 Sedona Working Group Member on AI and Trade Secrets\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Sedona Conference\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2025 Client Service All-Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI Consulting Group\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"24 Scholarly Publications\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Harvard, NYU, Virginia, British Journal of American Legal Studies, and More\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Federal Clerkship\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Federal Clerkship\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Federal Clerkship\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Past Member of the North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"North Carolina State Bar\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"National Order of Scribes\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Society of Legal Writers\"}{{ FIELD }}Jesse Snyder serves as lead counsel for litigations involving an industry-leading AI company offering products and services for legal departments worldwide.{{ FIELD }}Jesse Snyder is lead counsel to an industry-leading jet propulsion system manufacturer for the U.S. military, advising on AI, IP, privacy, trade, antitrust, and compliance.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to a pioneering and disrupting aerospace defense contractor designing pilot training devices for flight school, including achieving an agency corrective action through a successful bid protest.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to one of the largest national defense aerospace companies on AI governance and compliance, data mapping, and cybersecurity.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to an industry-leading space company pioneering human habitation in low-Earth orbit, advising on litigation, data security, and AI matters.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to numerous large-scale AI companies on governance, compliance, and international trade with an emphasis on national security.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to a prominent AI-enabled cybersecurity company on privacy, security, international trade, and intellectual property.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to numerous startups on research, design, development, and patenting of AI technology.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to an AI-enabled pharmaceutical company on the development and patenting of cannabis-plant-material compounds.{{ FIELD }}Jesse represented Google in the pathmarking copyright dispute against Oracle over use of APIs when coding.{{ FIELD }}Jesse delivered a complete defense victory for GW Pharma in a patent dispute over one of the few FDA-approved drugs containing cannabis plant materials. See Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharma Ltd., No. 22-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2023).{{ FIELD }}Jesse represented Equifax on various fronts during the 2017 data incident, including advising on congressional oversight, regulatory enforcement, state attorneys general litigation, and private lawsuits.{{ FIELD }}Jesse Snyder is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm’s Technology, Appellate, and Administrative Law practice groups. Jesse litigates prime time technology disputes, including those involving AI, data privacy, cybersecurity, intellectual property, appeals, strategic counseling, and bespoke cross-disciplinary solutions for clients facing significant risk. No matter the issue, Jesse is always present to help his clients navigate their toughest challenges. \nJesse helps his clients traverse scores of pressing fronts: novel disputes, government-facing advocacy, compliance, governance, licensing, national security, international trade, as well as practical business-minded matters to drive ROI and to galvanize KPIs. In addition to his well-established appellate and administrative law practice, Jesse has served as lead counsel in numerous litigations, including high-stakes disputes touching on data privacy and cybersecurity, intellectual property, pixel technology, and generative AI. What's more, Jesse regularly counsels clients in highly scrutinized industries on the development and implementation of cybersecurity, privacy, and generative AI compliance programs and protocols. Moreover, Jesse has been called upon to provide forensic analysis, technical advice, and legal defense to various clients facing exigent online attacks as well as illicit hacking events. He also routinely advises clients on AI algorithm and large language model development, data mapping, as well as various considerations and strategies when implementing AI into existing and nascent processes. In addition, Jesse takes pride in his dedicated practice aimed at advancing the talents of entrepreneurs to compete and to succeed, thereby providing steady advice and pragmatic guidance to help propel his clients forward to achieve their business objectives.  \nIn view of his achievements in these areas, Jesse was nominated by his clients and received recognition by the BTI Consulting Group as a 2025 Client Service All-Star, \"the gold standard used by corporate counsel and law firms alike to identify the attorneys delivering the absolute best levels of client service -- better than all others.\"  During 2025 in particular, BTI noted that \"only two attorneys earned their organic recognition from multiple clients,\" and Jesse was one of those two. Building further, the University of Mississippi School of Law's Center for Air and Space Law invited Jesse to be a 2025 and 2026 guest lecturer on cybersecurity and AI. The Sedona Conference also chose Jesse to serve on the 2026 working group on AI and trade secrets, working to build industry consensus around these areas of growing importance. \nDuring law school, Jesse served as editor in chief of the flagship law review publication, graduated in the highest percentile of his class, and was inducted into the National Order of Scribes. He is a published author in 24 different law reviews, covering a variety of topics ranging from the Antiterrorism Act and First Amendment to patent law and Twenty-first Amendment. He also serves as an ex officio member of Texas A\u0026amp;M’s faculty committee on clerkship placements. Before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Jesse served as a term law clerk to three federal judges: the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Honorable Jorge A. Solis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.\nBefore attending law school, Jesse amassed experience as an engineer at Stryker Corporation and as a commissioned military officer serving in the Air Force during the attacks on September 11, 2001. His medical-device experience covers a wide array of technology platforms for use in endoscopic procedures. And as a graduate of the Air Force Academy, Jesse is a proud combat veteran of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Multinational Corps-Iraq, and Combined Joint Task Force 7. During his service, he received multiple medals and awards. In addition, as an extension of his sustained commitment to public service, Jesse pioneered the firm's Armed Forces Attorney Coalition, a group whose purpose is to promote veteran interests in the legal profession as well as more broadly. Jesse also carries an abiding dedication to pro bono legal services, as demonstrated by his past multiyear recognition as a member of the North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society. Jesse is an avid runner, and he has been so for over 35 years. Jesse Snyder lawyer Partner 2025, 2026 Guest Lecturer on AI, IP, and Cybersecurity University of Mississippi School of Law 2026 Sedona Working Group Member on AI and Trade Secrets The Sedona Conference 2025 Client Service All-Star BTI Consulting Group 24 Scholarly Publications Harvard, NYU, Virginia, British Journal of American Legal Studies, and More Federal Clerkship U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Federal Clerkship U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Federal Clerkship U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Past Member of the North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society North Carolina State Bar National Order of Scribes The American Society of Legal Writers United States Air Force Academy  Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas District of Columbia North Carolina Texas North Carolina State Bar D.C. Bar Association Texas State Bar Assoication Buncombe County Bar Law Clerk, the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Law Clerk, the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Law Clerk, the Honorable Jorge A. Solis, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Jesse Snyder serves as lead counsel for litigations involving an industry-leading AI company offering products and services for legal departments worldwide. Jesse Snyder is lead counsel to an industry-leading jet propulsion system manufacturer for the U.S. military, advising on AI, IP, privacy, trade, antitrust, and compliance. Jesse is lead counsel to a pioneering and disrupting aerospace defense contractor designing pilot training devices for flight school, including achieving an agency corrective action through a successful bid protest. Jesse is lead counsel to one of the largest national defense aerospace companies on AI governance and compliance, data mapping, and cybersecurity. Jesse is lead counsel to an industry-leading space company pioneering human habitation in low-Earth orbit, advising on litigation, data security, and AI matters. Jesse is lead counsel to numerous large-scale AI companies on governance, compliance, and international trade with an emphasis on national security. Jesse is lead counsel to a prominent AI-enabled cybersecurity company on privacy, security, international trade, and intellectual property. Jesse is lead counsel to numerous startups on research, design, development, and patenting of AI technology. Jesse is lead counsel to an AI-enabled pharmaceutical company on the development and patenting of cannabis-plant-material compounds. Jesse represented Google in the pathmarking copyright dispute against Oracle over use of APIs when coding. Jesse delivered a complete defense victory for GW Pharma in a patent dispute over one of the few FDA-approved drugs containing cannabis plant materials. See Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharma Ltd., No. 22-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2023). Jesse represented Equifax on various fronts during the 2017 data incident, including advising on congressional oversight, regulatory enforcement, state attorneys general litigation, and private lawsuits.","searchable_name":"Jesse Snyder","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":446161,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3412,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kenneth-steinthal","email":"ksteinthal@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 917 825 7293","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Steinthal","nick_name":"Kenneth","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kenneth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4405},{"id":4405}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-25T16:42:53.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-25T16:42:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Steinthal{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"IP Trailblazers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading IP Attorneys: California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 USA \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"multiple years through 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Northern California Super Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2026 Lawdragon 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Hollywood Reporter\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AAI, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.{{ FIELD }}In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.{{ FIELD }}Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.{{ FIELD }}Kenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by National Law Journal as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by Law360 as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by Legal 500 as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of Legal 500, Chambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star) and the Daily Journal’s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. \nKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken’s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\nIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice’s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions. Partner “He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.” CHAMBERS USA 2022 IP Trailblazers National Law Journal, 2016 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs Law360, 2015 Top 10 Copyright Lawyers The Daily Journal Leading IP Attorneys: California The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021) Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022) Legal 500 USA  multiple years through 2022 Northern California Super Lawyer  Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021) 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel  Hollywood Reporter Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist  AAI, 2014 Williams College  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California California New York Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing. In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate. Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial. Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis. Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.","searchable_name":"Kenneth L. Steinthal","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":442970,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2379,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.\u0026nbsp; He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice, chair of\u0026nbsp;the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm\u0026rsquo;s ten-person Policy Committee.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as \u0026ldquo;an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work\u0026rdquo; and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Under Mike\u0026rsquo;s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refiner\u0026iacute;a de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.\u0026nbsp; After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.\u0026nbsp; Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.\u0026nbsp; In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike\u0026rsquo;s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.\u0026nbsp; For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit \u0026ndash; a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes.\u0026nbsp;He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to business disputes, Mike\u0026rsquo;s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.\u0026nbsp; These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).\u0026nbsp; Mike\u0026rsquo;s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.\u0026nbsp; Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mike-stenglein","email":"mstenglein@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 512 423 3092","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client \u003c/strong\u003ein AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential\u003c/strong\u003e South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor\u0026rsquo;s technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Trust Company\u003c/strong\u003e in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ethe Rigas Family\u003c/strong\u003e in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePG\u0026amp;E Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E\u0026rsquo;s Plan of Reorganization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eDeutsche Bank\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInfinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGateway Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMichigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eConstellation Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental \u003c/strong\u003einvolving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental Permian Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eAlpharma Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003epatent holder\u003c/strong\u003e in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon:\u003c/em\u003e Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeatherford International v. Panalpina\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford International\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Contractors\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip\u0026rsquo;s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.ON v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWindstar v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":234}]},"expertise":[{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":22,"guid":"22.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1114,"guid":"1114.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stenglein","nick_name":"Mike","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Mike","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2197,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1994-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2024"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-stenglein-07796871/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":48,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.\u0026nbsp; He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice, chair of\u0026nbsp;the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm\u0026rsquo;s ten-person Policy Committee.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as \u0026ldquo;an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work\u0026rdquo; and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Under Mike\u0026rsquo;s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refiner\u0026iacute;a de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.\u0026nbsp; After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.\u0026nbsp; Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.\u0026nbsp; In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike\u0026rsquo;s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.\u0026nbsp; For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit \u0026ndash; a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes.\u0026nbsp;He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to business disputes, Mike\u0026rsquo;s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.\u0026nbsp; These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).\u0026nbsp; Mike\u0026rsquo;s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.\u0026nbsp; Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client \u003c/strong\u003ein AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential\u003c/strong\u003e South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor\u0026rsquo;s technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Trust Company\u003c/strong\u003e in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ethe Rigas Family\u003c/strong\u003e in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePG\u0026amp;E Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E\u0026rsquo;s Plan of Reorganization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eDeutsche Bank\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInfinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGateway Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMichigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eConstellation Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental \u003c/strong\u003einvolving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental Permian Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eAlpharma Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003epatent holder\u003c/strong\u003e in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon:\u003c/em\u003e Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeatherford International v. Panalpina\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford International\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Contractors\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip\u0026rsquo;s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.ON v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWindstar v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2024"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, 2023"},{"title":"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10610}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-17T19:58:16.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-17T19:58:16.000Z","searchable_text":"Stenglein{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"King \u0026amp; Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"King \u0026amp; Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.{{ FIELD }}Represented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.{{ FIELD }}Represented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.{{ FIELD }}Represent a confidential client in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.{{ FIELD }}Represented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.{{ FIELD }}Represented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.{{ FIELD }}Represented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.{{ FIELD }}Represented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.{{ FIELD }}Represented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.{{ FIELD }}Represented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor’s technology.{{ FIELD }}David Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.: Represented U.S. Trust Company in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.{{ FIELD }}Adelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.: Represented the Rigas Family in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.{{ FIELD }}In Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Represented PG\u0026amp;E Corporation in litigation arising out of California’s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E’s Plan of Reorganization.{{ FIELD }}Deutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented Deutsche Bank in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.{{ FIELD }}Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.: Represented Gateway Energy in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.{{ FIELD }}Michigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.: Represented Constellation Energy in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.{{ FIELD }}Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Represented Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.{{ FIELD }}JD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.: Represented Occidental Permian Ltd. in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.{{ FIELD }}Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Represented Alpharma Inc. in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.{{ FIELD }}King Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Represented patent holder in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.{{ FIELD }}Cameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.: Represented Cooper Industries in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.{{ FIELD }}Cooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon: Represented Cooper Industries in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.{{ FIELD }}Weatherford International v. Panalpina: Represented Weatherford International in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.{{ FIELD }}U. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip: Represented U.S. Contractors in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip’s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.{{ FIELD }}Lower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.{{ FIELD }}Represented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the Osage litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The Osage cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.{{ FIELD }}Representing Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.{{ FIELD }}Representing Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.{{ FIELD }}Represented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.{{ FIELD }}E.ON v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.{{ FIELD }}Windstar v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.{{ FIELD }}AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.{{ FIELD }}Mike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.  He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm’s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes practice, chair of the firm’s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm’s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm’s ten-person Policy Committee.\nWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as “an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work” and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.”  Under Mike’s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\nMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refinería de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.  After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.  Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.  In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\nMike’s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.  For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit – a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes. He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\nWith respect to business disputes, Mike’s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.  These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).  Mike’s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.  Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\nPrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.  Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP. Mike Stenglein Partner King \u0026amp; Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year Global Arbitration Review, 2021-2024 Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year Law 360, 2024 Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm Benchmark Litigation, 2023 Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs Law 360, 2023 King \u0026amp; Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide Legal 500, 2023 Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, 2023 Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year Law 360, 2023 Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation Legal 500, 2022 Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, 2022 Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm Benchmark Litigation, 2021 Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, 2021 University of Florida Levin College of Law University of Houston University of Houston Law Center 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 Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida New York Texas Representing Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America. Represented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays. Representing a confidential client in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas. Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia. Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America. Representing a confidential client in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa. Representing a confidential client in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada. Represented a confidential client in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss. Represented a confidential client in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast. Represented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC. Represented a confidential client in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long). Represented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts. Represented a confidential client in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq. Representing a confidential client in AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas. Representing a confidential South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials. Represented a confidential client over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania. Represent a confidential client in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption. Represented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue. Represented a confidential client in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee. Represented a confidential client in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand. Represented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany. Represented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA. Represented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals. Represented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States. Represented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor’s technology. David Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.: Represented U.S. Trust Company in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock. Adelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.: Represented the Rigas Family in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court. In Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Represented PG\u0026amp;E Corporation in litigation arising out of California’s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E’s Plan of Reorganization. Deutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented Deutsche Bank in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest. Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.: Represented Gateway Energy in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida. Michigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.: Represented Constellation Energy in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation. Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Represented Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana. JD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.: Represented Occidental Permian Ltd. in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle. Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Represented Alpharma Inc. in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York. King Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Represented patent holder in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware. Cameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.: Represented Cooper Industries in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper. Cooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon: Represented Cooper Industries in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement. Weatherford International v. Panalpina: Represented Weatherford International in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq. U. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip: Represented U.S. Contractors in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip’s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety. Lower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant. Represented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the Osage litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The Osage cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients. Representing Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store. Representing Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients. Represented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute. Represented a confidential client in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology. E.ON v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing. Windstar v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims. AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.","searchable_name":"Mike Stenglein","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":446394,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7343,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJohn is a trial lawyer with significant courtroom experience in both federal and state courts (including the Texas Business Court), as well as arbitrations. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation for corporations and individuals across a wide variety of industries, as well as internal investigations and white-collar criminal defense.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn represents clients at all stages of litigation and has extensive dispositive motion, deposition, oral argument, and trial experience, and works closely with witnesses to prepare them for deposition and trial testimony. John has served as a key member of multiple trial teams, including obtaining injunctive relief, second chair experience, opening statements, and examining witnesses. John frequently represents clients in matters involving breach of contract, fraud, trade secrets, fiduciary duties, class actions, the False Claims Act, and other business disputes and regulatory matters. His experience also includes providing pre-litigation and regulatory counseling, engaging in alternative dispute resolution proceedings, and obtaining favorable settlements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn was previously selected to serve as an Assistant District Attorney at the Dallas County District Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office through its lawyer on loan program where he tried multiple criminal jury trials to verdict, handling everything from voir dire through closing argument. John maintains an active pro bono practice with a variety of commercial and civil rights matters, and during law school served as an intern to the Honorable Robert E. Gerber, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-sullivan","email":"jsullivan@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended three major financial institutions against False Claims Act allegations, obtaining dismissal in the District Court, which was upheld on appeal, with millions of dollars of alleged damages and potential debarment at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Canadian private equity company in Travis County District Court, obtaining dismissal of claims alleging breaches of representations in an asset purchase agreement where plaintiff sought more than US$19 million in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a technology company in a dispute involving alleged breaches of contract, fraud, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trade secret misappropriation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America ex rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al. \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\u003eU.S.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eex rel. Hernandez v. Team Health LLC et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex). Counsel for one of the largest emergency room staffing companies in the U.S. defending claims under the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a private equity fund against claims of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and a declaratory action regarding a restrictive covenant in connection with an a multi-million dollar transaction. Obtained dismissal of all claims and was awarded attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees in the Trial Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple businesses in bringing claims relating to departing employees and misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets, including successfully obtaining injunctive relief.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a defense contractor in a confidential internal investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an oil and gas company in a confidential dispute involving a wild well incident, obtaining a favorable settlement prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a financial institution in a case involving a breach of contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented international construction companies in a dispute involving alleged fraudulent transfers and breach of fiduciary duties, obtaining favorable settlement prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a temporary restraining order for a retail business in a real estate dispute.\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":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sullivan","nick_name":"John","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Honorable Robert E. Gerber, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York","years_held":"2013 - 2013"}],"first_name":"John","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":2282,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Executive Editor - Journal of Business Law","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2015-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"T.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ones to Watch in America – Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023-2026"},{"title":"Ones to Watch in America – Criminal Defense: White Collar","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2024-2026"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-sullivan-23a74312/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJohn is a trial lawyer with significant courtroom experience in both federal and state courts (including the Texas Business Court), as well as arbitrations. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation for corporations and individuals across a wide variety of industries, as well as internal investigations and white-collar criminal defense.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn represents clients at all stages of litigation and has extensive dispositive motion, deposition, oral argument, and trial experience, and works closely with witnesses to prepare them for deposition and trial testimony. John has served as a key member of multiple trial teams, including obtaining injunctive relief, second chair experience, opening statements, and examining witnesses. John frequently represents clients in matters involving breach of contract, fraud, trade secrets, fiduciary duties, class actions, the False Claims Act, and other business disputes and regulatory matters. His experience also includes providing pre-litigation and regulatory counseling, engaging in alternative dispute resolution proceedings, and obtaining favorable settlements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn was previously selected to serve as an Assistant District Attorney at the Dallas County District Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office through its lawyer on loan program where he tried multiple criminal jury trials to verdict, handling everything from voir dire through closing argument. John maintains an active pro bono practice with a variety of commercial and civil rights matters, and during law school served as an intern to the Honorable Robert E. Gerber, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended three major financial institutions against False Claims Act allegations, obtaining dismissal in the District Court, which was upheld on appeal, with millions of dollars of alleged damages and potential debarment at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Canadian private equity company in Travis County District Court, obtaining dismissal of claims alleging breaches of representations in an asset purchase agreement where plaintiff sought more than US$19 million in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a technology company in a dispute involving alleged breaches of contract, fraud, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trade secret misappropriation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America ex rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al. \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\u003eU.S.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eex rel. Hernandez v. Team Health LLC et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex). Counsel for one of the largest emergency room staffing companies in the U.S. defending claims under the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a private equity fund against claims of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and a declaratory action regarding a restrictive covenant in connection with an a multi-million dollar transaction. Obtained dismissal of all claims and was awarded attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees in the Trial Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple businesses in bringing claims relating to departing employees and misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets, including successfully obtaining injunctive relief.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a defense contractor in a confidential internal investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an oil and gas company in a confidential dispute involving a wild well incident, obtaining a favorable settlement prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a financial institution in a case involving a breach of contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented international construction companies in a dispute involving alleged fraudulent transfers and breach of fiduciary duties, obtaining favorable settlement prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a temporary restraining order for a retail business in a real estate dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ones to Watch in America – Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023-2026"},{"title":"Ones to Watch in America – Criminal Defense: White Collar","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2024-2026"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13386}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T18:39:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T18:39:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Sullivan{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ones to Watch in America – Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2023-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ones to Watch in America – Criminal Defense: White Collar\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2024-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}Defended three major financial institutions against False Claims Act allegations, obtaining dismissal in the District Court, which was upheld on appeal, with millions of dollars of alleged damages and potential debarment at stake.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Canadian private equity company in Travis County District Court, obtaining dismissal of claims alleging breaches of representations in an asset purchase agreement where plaintiff sought more than US$19 million in damages.{{ FIELD }}Represented a technology company in a dispute involving alleged breaches of contract, fraud, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trade secret misappropriation.{{ 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 }}U.S. ex rel. Hernandez v. Team Health LLC et al. (E.D. Tex). Counsel for one of the largest emergency room staffing companies in the U.S. defending claims under the False Claims Act.{{ FIELD }}Defended a private equity fund against claims of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and a declaratory action regarding a restrictive covenant in connection with an a multi-million dollar transaction. Obtained dismissal of all claims and was awarded attorneys’ fees in the Trial Court.{{ FIELD }}Represented multiple businesses in bringing claims relating to departing employees and misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets, including successfully obtaining injunctive relief.{{ FIELD }}Represented a defense contractor in a confidential internal investigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented an oil and gas company in a confidential dispute involving a wild well incident, obtaining a favorable settlement prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented a financial institution in a case involving a breach of contract.{{ FIELD }}Represented international construction companies in a dispute involving alleged fraudulent transfers and breach of fiduciary duties, obtaining favorable settlement prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a temporary restraining order for a retail business in a real estate dispute.{{ FIELD }}John is a trial lawyer with significant courtroom experience in both federal and state courts (including the Texas Business Court), as well as arbitrations. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation for corporations and individuals across a wide variety of industries, as well as internal investigations and white-collar criminal defense.\nJohn represents clients at all stages of litigation and has extensive dispositive motion, deposition, oral argument, and trial experience, and works closely with witnesses to prepare them for deposition and trial testimony. John has served as a key member of multiple trial teams, including obtaining injunctive relief, second chair experience, opening statements, and examining witnesses. John frequently represents clients in matters involving breach of contract, fraud, trade secrets, fiduciary duties, class actions, the False Claims Act, and other business disputes and regulatory matters. His experience also includes providing pre-litigation and regulatory counseling, engaging in alternative dispute resolution proceedings, and obtaining favorable settlements.\nJohn was previously selected to serve as an Assistant District Attorney at the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office through its lawyer on loan program where he tried multiple criminal jury trials to verdict, handling everything from voir dire through closing argument. John maintains an active pro bono practice with a variety of commercial and civil rights matters, and during law school served as an intern to the Honorable Robert E. Gerber, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of New York. Partner Ones to Watch in America – Commercial Litigation Best Lawyers, 2023-2026 Ones to Watch in America – Criminal Defense: White Collar Best Lawyers, 2024-2026 University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law School University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School Texas Member, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, 2015 - Present Intern, Honorable Robert E. Gerber, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York Defended three major financial institutions against False Claims Act allegations, obtaining dismissal in the District Court, which was upheld on appeal, with millions of dollars of alleged damages and potential debarment at stake. Represented a Canadian private equity company in Travis County District Court, obtaining dismissal of claims alleging breaches of representations in an asset purchase agreement where plaintiff sought more than US$19 million in damages. Represented a technology company in a dispute involving alleged breaches of contract, fraud, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trade secret misappropriation. 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. U.S. ex rel. Hernandez v. Team Health LLC et al. (E.D. Tex). Counsel for one of the largest emergency room staffing companies in the U.S. defending claims under the False Claims Act. Defended a private equity fund against claims of negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and a declaratory action regarding a restrictive covenant in connection with an a multi-million dollar transaction. Obtained dismissal of all claims and was awarded attorneys’ fees in the Trial Court. Represented multiple businesses in bringing claims relating to departing employees and misappropriation of confidential information and trade secrets, including successfully obtaining injunctive relief. Represented a defense contractor in a confidential internal investigation. Represented an oil and gas company in a confidential dispute involving a wild well incident, obtaining a favorable settlement prior to trial. Represented a financial institution in a case involving a breach of contract. Represented international construction companies in a dispute involving alleged fraudulent transfers and breach of fiduciary duties, obtaining favorable settlement prior to trial. Obtained a temporary restraining order for a retail business in a real estate dispute.","searchable_name":"John T. Sullivan","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442755,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5171,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMikaela Stone focuses her practice on complex patent litigation, both in federal courts and before the Patent Trial \u0026amp; Appeal Board. Her experience in more than one hundred PTAB proceedings has equipped her with the knowledge necessary to develop and execute a winning case strategy.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMikaela Stone is Counsel\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;King \u0026amp; Spalding's Denver office and a member of the Trial and Global Disputes\u0026nbsp;Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; She has litigated high-profile IP matters\u0026nbsp;in district court, the Federal Circuit, and before the Patent Trial \u0026amp; Appeal Board across a variety of technologies, including wireless technologies, medical devices, enterprise storage hardware systems and content management platforms, cybersecurity, and design patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMikaela's interdisciplinary experience trying antitrust and trade secret claims, as well as more than one hundred PTAB proceedings,\u0026nbsp;uniquely qualifies her for developing creative defensive strategies, particularly in a competitor versus competitor environment.\u0026nbsp; Mikaela was named by the PTAB Bar Association to the Top 50 Women in PTAB Trials and teaches as an adjunct professor at University of Denver Law School.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the legal field, Mikaela conducted research in mathematical epidemiology and constructed hardware for the gamma-ray based Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS). Her previous studies have equipped her with broad knowledge in physical, electrical, chemical, and biological sciences.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mikaela-stone","email":"mikaela.stone@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":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stone","nick_name":"Mikaela","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Mikaela","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1771,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2014-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Top 50 Women in PTAB Trials","detail":"PTAB Bar Association, 2025"},{"title":"Top Attorneys in Colorado","detail":"Rising Star - Super Lawyers, 2025"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2023"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikaela-stone-9a2aab63/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMikaela Stone focuses her practice on complex patent litigation, both in federal courts and before the Patent Trial \u0026amp; Appeal Board. Her experience in more than one hundred PTAB proceedings has equipped her with the knowledge necessary to develop and execute a winning case strategy.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMikaela Stone is Counsel\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;King \u0026amp; Spalding's Denver office and a member of the Trial and Global Disputes\u0026nbsp;Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; She has litigated high-profile IP matters\u0026nbsp;in district court, the Federal Circuit, and before the Patent Trial \u0026amp; Appeal Board across a variety of technologies, including wireless technologies, medical devices, enterprise storage hardware systems and content management platforms, cybersecurity, and design patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMikaela's interdisciplinary experience trying antitrust and trade secret claims, as well as more than one hundred PTAB proceedings,\u0026nbsp;uniquely qualifies her for developing creative defensive strategies, particularly in a competitor versus competitor environment.\u0026nbsp; Mikaela was named by the PTAB Bar Association to the Top 50 Women in PTAB Trials and teaches as an adjunct professor at University of Denver Law School.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the legal field, Mikaela conducted research in mathematical epidemiology and constructed hardware for the gamma-ray based Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS). Her previous studies have equipped her with broad knowledge in physical, electrical, chemical, and biological sciences.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Top 50 Women in PTAB Trials","detail":"PTAB Bar Association, 2025"},{"title":"Top Attorneys in Colorado","detail":"Rising Star - Super Lawyers, 2025"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12814}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:19.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Stone{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 50 Women in PTAB Trials\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"PTAB Bar Association, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Attorneys in Colorado\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star - Super Lawyers, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Mikaela Stone focuses her practice on complex patent litigation, both in federal courts and before the Patent Trial \u0026amp; Appeal Board. Her experience in more than one hundred PTAB proceedings has equipped her with the knowledge necessary to develop and execute a winning case strategy. \nMikaela Stone is Counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Denver office and a member of the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group.  She has litigated high-profile IP matters in district court, the Federal Circuit, and before the Patent Trial \u0026amp; Appeal Board across a variety of technologies, including wireless technologies, medical devices, enterprise storage hardware systems and content management platforms, cybersecurity, and design patents.\nMikaela's interdisciplinary experience trying antitrust and trade secret claims, as well as more than one hundred PTAB proceedings, uniquely qualifies her for developing creative defensive strategies, particularly in a competitor versus competitor environment.  Mikaela was named by the PTAB Bar Association to the Top 50 Women in PTAB Trials and teaches as an adjunct professor at University of Denver Law School. \nPrior to joining the legal field, Mikaela conducted research in mathematical epidemiology and constructed hardware for the gamma-ray based Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS). Her previous studies have equipped her with broad knowledge in physical, electrical, chemical, and biological sciences.  Counsel Top 50 Women in PTAB Trials PTAB Bar Association, 2025 Top Attorneys in Colorado Rising Star - Super Lawyers, 2025 Rising Star Super Lawyers, 2024 Rising Star Super Lawyers, 2023 University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law Santa Clara University Santa Clara University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Colorado PTAB Bar Association USPTO #70404","searchable_name":"Mikaela Stone","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":444762,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6624,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAustin Sanders is a registered patent attorney specializing in intellectual property portfolio development for clients ranging from startups to established companies. His practice encompasses U.S. and international patent preparation, prosecution, and IP due diligence review. Equipped with a chemistry degree and considerable experience in engineering-focused patents, Austin works closely with inventors to ensure his client\u0026rsquo;s intellectual property rights are comprehensively captured.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"austin-sanders","email":"asanders@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":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":984,"guid":"984.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sanders","nick_name":"Austin","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Austin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAustin Sanders is a registered patent attorney specializing in intellectual property portfolio development for clients ranging from startups to established companies. His practice encompasses U.S. and international patent preparation, prosecution, and IP due diligence review. Equipped with a chemistry degree and considerable experience in engineering-focused patents, Austin works closely with inventors to ensure his client\u0026rsquo;s intellectual property rights are comprehensively captured.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12260}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-04T05:02:11.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-04T05:02:11.000Z","searchable_text":"Sanders{{ FIELD }}Austin Sanders is a registered patent attorney specializing in intellectual property portfolio development for clients ranging from startups to established companies. His practice encompasses U.S. and international patent preparation, prosecution, and IP due diligence review. Equipped with a chemistry degree and considerable experience in engineering-focused patents, Austin works closely with inventors to ensure his client’s intellectual property rights are comprehensively captured. Associate Appalachian State University  North Carolina Central University North Carolina Central University School of Law North Carolina","searchable_name":"Austin Sanders","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":438581,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6891,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAadam is a technology, commercial and privacy specialist within King \u0026amp; Spalding's Corporate practice group.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAadam is a technology, commercial, cybersecurity and privacy specialist within King \u0026amp; Spalding's Corporate practice group. His practice focuses on technology transactions and complex commercial contracts matters, including sourcing and\u0026nbsp;distribution deals;\u0026nbsp;business process outsourcing arrangements; cloud services agreements\u0026nbsp;in relation to\u0026nbsp;IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS; digital transformation projects; software licensing and transfer agreements; development and collaboration agreements and other technology and IP-rich transactions. Aadam also has expertise in advising on the technology, data protection and intellectual property aspects of M\u0026amp;A transactions, including on transitional services agreements and migration plans in the context of business acquisitions and carve-outs. He has advised global clients across a range of sectors such as energy, consumer products, financial services, healthcare, technology, media, telecommunications and logistics.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe additionally supports clients on their development, procurement and deployment of technology, and use of data in relation to data protection\u0026nbsp;and AI regulation compliance and has a keen interest in the intellectual property and privacy issues arising from emerging technologies. Aadam has undertaken secondments to NBC Universal and Octopus Energy prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"aadam-sattar","email":"asattar@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3250}]},"expertise":[{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sattar","nick_name":"Aadam","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Aadam","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Aadam is a technology, commercial and privacy specialist within King \u0026 Spalding's Corporate practice group. ","primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAadam is a technology, commercial and privacy specialist within King \u0026amp; Spalding's Corporate practice group.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAadam is a technology, commercial, cybersecurity and privacy specialist within King \u0026amp; Spalding's Corporate practice group. His practice focuses on technology transactions and complex commercial contracts matters, including sourcing and\u0026nbsp;distribution deals;\u0026nbsp;business process outsourcing arrangements; cloud services agreements\u0026nbsp;in relation to\u0026nbsp;IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS; digital transformation projects; software licensing and transfer agreements; development and collaboration agreements and other technology and IP-rich transactions. Aadam also has expertise in advising on the technology, data protection and intellectual property aspects of M\u0026amp;A transactions, including on transitional services agreements and migration plans in the context of business acquisitions and carve-outs. He has advised global clients across a range of sectors such as energy, consumer products, financial services, healthcare, technology, media, telecommunications and logistics.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe additionally supports clients on their development, procurement and deployment of technology, and use of data in relation to data protection\u0026nbsp;and AI regulation compliance and has a keen interest in the intellectual property and privacy issues arising from emerging technologies. Aadam has undertaken secondments to NBC Universal and Octopus Energy prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13029}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-09-30T18:27:15.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-30T18:27:15.000Z","searchable_text":"Sattar{{ FIELD }}Aadam is a technology, commercial and privacy specialist within King \u0026amp; Spalding's Corporate practice group. \nAadam is a technology, commercial, cybersecurity and privacy specialist within King \u0026amp; Spalding's Corporate practice group. His practice focuses on technology transactions and complex commercial contracts matters, including sourcing and distribution deals; business process outsourcing arrangements; cloud services agreements in relation to IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS; digital transformation projects; software licensing and transfer agreements; development and collaboration agreements and other technology and IP-rich transactions. Aadam also has expertise in advising on the technology, data protection and intellectual property aspects of M\u0026amp;A transactions, including on transitional services agreements and migration plans in the context of business acquisitions and carve-outs. He has advised global clients across a range of sectors such as energy, consumer products, financial services, healthcare, technology, media, telecommunications and logistics. \nHe additionally supports clients on their development, procurement and deployment of technology, and use of data in relation to data protection and AI regulation compliance and has a keen interest in the intellectual property and privacy issues arising from emerging technologies. Aadam has undertaken secondments to NBC Universal and Octopus Energy prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding.  Adam Sattar lawyer Associate","searchable_name":"Aadam Sattar","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":427040,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6202,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNicholas (\"Nick\") Sieger is\u0026nbsp;an associate of the firm's\u0026nbsp;Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice.\u0026nbsp;Nick specializes in intellectual property litigation with an emphasis in patent litigation. Nick has experience\u0026nbsp;litigating cases before the U.S. district courts and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"nicholas-sieger","email":"nsieger@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":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sieger","nick_name":"Nicholas","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Nicholas","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":2278,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNicholas (\"Nick\") Sieger is\u0026nbsp;an associate of the firm's\u0026nbsp;Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice.\u0026nbsp;Nick specializes in intellectual property litigation with an emphasis in patent litigation. Nick has experience\u0026nbsp;litigating cases before the U.S. district courts and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9475}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:58:26.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:58:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Sieger{{ FIELD }}Nicholas (\"Nick\") Sieger is an associate of the firm's Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice. Nick specializes in intellectual property litigation with an emphasis in patent litigation. Nick has experience litigating cases before the U.S. district courts and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Associate North Carolina State University  University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law School U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Illinois","searchable_name":"Nicholas Sieger","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":446874,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1374,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNicole Smythe is a patent agent in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice.\u0026nbsp; Her practice focuses on of U.S. and international patent prosecution, patentability and infringement analyses, and due diligence reviews in the chemical arts.\u0026nbsp; She has also assisted with litigation activities and in adversarial proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNicole is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.\u0026nbsp; She has worked across a broad range of patent prosecution matters in the fields of pharmaceuticals, organic synthesis, polymers (including bio-based), catalysts, waste water treatment, radioactive waste treatment, oil recovery, mining, packaging, and cosmeceuticals.\u0026nbsp; She has drafted numerous patent applications and has successfully prosecuted patent applications to grant in jurisdictions around the world. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNicole's\u0026nbsp;graduate research focused on carbon-oxygen reductive elimination and dioxygen insertion reactions for the development of selective alkane oxidation catalysts. Nicole was a post-doctoral research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where her research focused on metal-catalyzed insertion of carbon dioxide for the preparation of various organic compounds.\u0026nbsp; She has presented her research at national symposia and has authored of several peer reviewed scientific articles.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"nicole-smythe","email":"nsmythe@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.aofs","index":0,"source":"aofs"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Smythe","nick_name":"Nicole","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Nicole","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":70,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNicole Smythe is a patent agent in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice.\u0026nbsp; Her practice focuses on of U.S. and international patent prosecution, patentability and infringement analyses, and due diligence reviews in the chemical arts.\u0026nbsp; She has also assisted with litigation activities and in adversarial proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNicole is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.\u0026nbsp; She has worked across a broad range of patent prosecution matters in the fields of pharmaceuticals, organic synthesis, polymers (including bio-based), catalysts, waste water treatment, radioactive waste treatment, oil recovery, mining, packaging, and cosmeceuticals.\u0026nbsp; She has drafted numerous patent applications and has successfully prosecuted patent applications to grant in jurisdictions around the world. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNicole's\u0026nbsp;graduate research focused on carbon-oxygen reductive elimination and dioxygen insertion reactions for the development of selective alkane oxidation catalysts. Nicole was a post-doctoral research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where her research focused on metal-catalyzed insertion of carbon dioxide for the preparation of various organic compounds.\u0026nbsp; She has presented her research at national symposia and has authored of several peer reviewed scientific articles.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-19T22:06:01.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-19T22:06:01.000Z","searchable_text":"Smythe{{ FIELD }}Nicole Smythe is a patent agent in the firm’s Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice.  Her practice focuses on of U.S. and international patent prosecution, patentability and infringement analyses, and due diligence reviews in the chemical arts.  She has also assisted with litigation activities and in adversarial proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.\n\nNicole is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  She has worked across a broad range of patent prosecution matters in the fields of pharmaceuticals, organic synthesis, polymers (including bio-based), catalysts, waste water treatment, radioactive waste treatment, oil recovery, mining, packaging, and cosmeceuticals.  She has drafted numerous patent applications and has successfully prosecuted patent applications to grant in jurisdictions around the world.  \nNicole's graduate research focused on carbon-oxygen reductive elimination and dioxygen insertion reactions for the development of selective alkane oxidation catalysts. Nicole was a post-doctoral research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where her research focused on metal-catalyzed insertion of carbon dioxide for the preparation of various organic compounds.  She has presented her research at national symposia and has authored of several peer reviewed scientific articles. Patent Agent Claremont McKenna College  University of Washington-Seattle Campus University of Washington School of Law University of Washington-Seattle Campus University of Washington School of Law Massachusetts Institute of Technology ","searchable_name":"Nicole Smythe","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}]}}