{"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":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":444169,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4211,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJoe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35\u0026nbsp;trials and arbitrations.\u0026nbsp; He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.\u0026nbsp; A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).\u0026nbsp; He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (\u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (\u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e), in addition to other honors received from\u0026nbsp;the \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe Recorder\u003c/em\u003e, and other publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"joseph-akrotirianakis","email":"jakro@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s decision \u0026ldquo;would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute\u0026rsquo;s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients\u0026rsquo; favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company\u0026rsquo;s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing \u0026ldquo;compounded\u0026rdquo; drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of North America\u0026rsquo;s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business \u0026ldquo;divorce\u0026rdquo; from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents the U.S. West Coast\u0026rsquo;s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the \u0026ldquo;West Coast Port Slowdown.\u0026rdquo; After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be \u0026ldquo;constructively\u0026rdquo; closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company\u0026rsquo;s former employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented California\u0026rsquo;s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the world\u0026rsquo;s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":125,"guid":"125.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1205,"guid":"1205.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Akrotirianakis","nick_name":"Joe","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"1998 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Joseph","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2895,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude \u0026 Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1998-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.”","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California"},{"title":"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential issues or outcomes.”","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California"},{"title":"Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\"","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024"},{"title":"Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally)","detail":"Daily Journal, 2024"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present"},{"title":"Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes","detail":"Legal 500 U.S., 2022-2025"},{"title":"Litigation Star (National)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"California Litigation Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\"","detail":"Financial Times, 2022"},{"title":"Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm","detail":"National Law Journal, 2022"},{"title":"Named a \"Trailblazer: West\"","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Named a \"California Trailblazer\"","detail":"The Recorder, 2020"},{"title":"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Lawyers","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017"},{"title":"Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry","detail":"Law360, 2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-akrotirianakis-78bb3269/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJoe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35\u0026nbsp;trials and arbitrations.\u0026nbsp; He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.\u0026nbsp; A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).\u0026nbsp; He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (\u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (\u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e), in addition to other honors received from\u0026nbsp;the \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe Recorder\u003c/em\u003e, and other publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s decision \u0026ldquo;would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute\u0026rsquo;s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients\u0026rsquo; favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company\u0026rsquo;s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing \u0026ldquo;compounded\u0026rdquo; drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of North America\u0026rsquo;s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business \u0026ldquo;divorce\u0026rdquo; from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents the U.S. West Coast\u0026rsquo;s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the \u0026ldquo;West Coast Port Slowdown.\u0026rdquo; After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be \u0026ldquo;constructively\u0026rdquo; closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company\u0026rsquo;s former employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented California\u0026rsquo;s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the world\u0026rsquo;s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.”","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California"},{"title":"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential issues or outcomes.”","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California"},{"title":"Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\"","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024"},{"title":"Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally)","detail":"Daily Journal, 2024"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present"},{"title":"Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes","detail":"Legal 500 U.S., 2022-2025"},{"title":"Litigation Star (National)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"California Litigation Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\"","detail":"Financial Times, 2022"},{"title":"Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm","detail":"National Law Journal, 2022"},{"title":"Named a \"Trailblazer: West\"","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Named a \"California Trailblazer\"","detail":"The Recorder, 2020"},{"title":"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Lawyers","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017"},{"title":"Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry","detail":"Law360, 2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11424}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-11T16:50:45.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-11T16:50:45.000Z","searchable_text":"Akrotirianakis{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential issues or outcomes.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among Los Angeles' \\\"Top 100 Lawyers\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among 50 \\\"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\\\" (nationally)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed as \\\"Recommended\\\" in category of General Commercial Disputes\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 U.S., 2022-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Star (National)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"California Litigation Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Shortlisted as an \\\"Innovative Practitioner\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Financial Times, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as the only \\\"Plaintiff Trailblazer\\\" at a large law firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a \\\"Trailblazer: West\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a \\\"California Trailblazer\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Recorder, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among \\\"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\\\" across all practice areas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 \\\"MVP,\\\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}As lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California’s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.{{ FIELD }}As trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.{{ FIELD }}As lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB’s decision “would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.”{{ FIELD }}As co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute’s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients’ favor.{{ FIELD }}As lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney’s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.{{ FIELD }}As lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation’s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney’s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.{{ FIELD }}Represent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company’s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.{{ FIELD }}Represented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing “compounded” drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.{{ FIELD }}The action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\nRepresented one of North America’s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s unlawful business practices.\nAs lead counsel, represented one of the world’s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business “divorce” from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world’s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\nRepresents the U.S. West Coast’s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\nAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\nDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the “West Coast Port Slowdown.” After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be “constructively” closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\nPersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\nPersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\nRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\nServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\nRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\nRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company’s former employees.\nRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\nRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\nRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented California’s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented the world’s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.{{ FIELD }}Joe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.  He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35 trials and arbitrations.  He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.  Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.  A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career. \nMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.  Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).  He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (Daily Journal), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (Legal 500 U.S., 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (Benchmark Litigation, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (Financial Times, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (Law360), in addition to other honors received from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, The Recorder, and other publications.\nBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.  Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.  \n  Partner “He is very thorough and very well experienced.” Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California “Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential issues or outcomes.” Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024 Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally) Daily Journal, 2024 The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation  The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes Legal 500 U.S., 2022-2025 Litigation Star (National) Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present California Litigation Star Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\" Financial Times, 2022 Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm National Law Journal, 2022 Named a \"Trailblazer: West\" The American Lawyer, 2021 Named a \"California Trailblazer\" The Recorder, 2020 Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Lawyers Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020 Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas Super Lawyers, 2017 Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry Law360, 2016 Whittier College Whittier Law School Loyola Law School Loyola Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida California Law Clerk, Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit As lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California’s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial. As trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia. As lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB’s decision “would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.” As co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute’s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients’ favor. As lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney’s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut. As lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation’s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial. Represented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney’s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest. Represent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company’s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity. Represented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing “compounded” drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law. The action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\nRepresented one of North America’s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s unlawful business practices.\nAs lead counsel, represented one of the world’s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business “divorce” from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world’s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\nRepresents the U.S. West Coast’s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\nAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\nDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the “West Coast Port Slowdown.” After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be “constructively” closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\nPersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\nPersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client’s favor. Persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\nRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\nServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\nRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\nRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company’s former employees.\nRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\nRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\nRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented California’s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented the world’s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.","searchable_name":"Joseph Akrotirianakis (Joe)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445534,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7306,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"natalie-arbaugh","email":"narbaugh@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Arbaugh","nick_name":"Natalie","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court","years_held":"2001 - 2002"}],"first_name":"Natalie","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":1852,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2001-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13341}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","searchable_text":"Arbaugh{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Trademark Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Plaintiff\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2014–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Monthly, January 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation{{ FIELD }}Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.{{ FIELD }}Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Qui Tam Litigation{{ FIELD }}Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.{{ FIELD }}False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.{{ FIELD }}Class Action and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.{{ FIELD }}Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims.{{ FIELD }}Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Other Commercial Litigation{{ FIELD }}Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Employment and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.{{ FIELD }}Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.{{ FIELD }}FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled.{{ FIELD }}Reported Decisions{{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement){{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims){{ FIELD }}Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting){{ FIELD }}INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets){{ FIELD }}Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.){{ FIELD }}Natalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 250 Women in Litigation,” ranked by Chambers USA, listed in The Best Lawyers in America®, selected to the Texas Super Lawyers list, and named “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. \nNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex—and often high-profile—business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation. \nNatalie’s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General’s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a “Litigation Department of the Year” finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\nIn an IP case covered by Law360, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client’s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys’ fees, the trial court judge stated, “Counsel’s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.”\nThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie’s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor—someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.  Partner Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds Chambers USA, 2023–2025 Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025 Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026 Recognized for Trademark Law The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026 Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation”  Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026 Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026  Recognized for Plaintiff Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026 Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas”  Super Lawyers, 2017–2024 “Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation D Magazine, 2014–2022 “Top Women Attorneys in Texas”  Texas Monthly, January 2020 Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law Texas Member of Trade Secrets Committee, AIPLA, 2015–present Member of Board of Directors, Texas General Counsel Forum, DFW Chapter, 2011–Present Dallas Association of Young Lawyers Lifetime Fellow Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution. Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues. Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms. Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company. Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff. Qui Tam Litigation Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas. False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages. Class Action and Collective Action Litigation Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs. Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms. Other Commercial Litigation Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation. Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial. Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms. Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed. Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms. Employment and Collective Action Litigation Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement. Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement. FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled. Reported Decisions Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement) Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims) Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting) INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets) Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)","searchable_name":"Natalie L. Arbaugh","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442365,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e","slug":"bruce-baber","email":"bbaber@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-917-749-1247","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":17}]},"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":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baber","nick_name":"Bruce","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Bruce","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"W.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebaber/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","searchable_text":"Baber{{ FIELD }}Bruce Baber focuses his practice in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.\nBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\nBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\nFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by Chambers USA. He has also been listed in multiple editions of The Best Lawyers in America, The Legal 500, The World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World’s Leading Trademark Professionals, The International Who’s Who of Trademark Lawyers, numerous Super Lawyer lists and other leading industry publications.\nA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\n \nAdmitted only in Georgia. Bruce W Baber Partner Princeton University  Duke University Duke University School of Law Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Best Lawyers In America.","searchable_name":"Bruce W. Baber","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":442789,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5487,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eStephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client\u0026rsquo;s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is \u0026ldquo;[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.\u0026rdquo; In common with his colleagues, \u0026ldquo;he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective\u0026rdquo;; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the \u0026ldquo;[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers \u0026ldquo; by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"stephen-baskin","email":"sbaskin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (\u0026ldquo;TCL\u0026rdquo;). Case favorably settled for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCraig Alexander v. a major international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(GA: DeKalb Country State Court)\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client\u0026rsquo;s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton\u0026rsquo;s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (\u0026ldquo;GM\u0026rdquo;) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSoundView Innovations v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client\u0026rsquo;s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLighthouse Consulting Group, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright\u0026rsquo;s decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM\u0026rsquo;s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParallel Iron v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eand US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInnova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital, LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eStambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baskin","nick_name":"Steve","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Stephen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":345,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"A great client-oriented attorney\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked “Patent 1000”","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"title":"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”","detail":"Washingtonian Magazine"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eStephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client\u0026rsquo;s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is \u0026ldquo;[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.\u0026rdquo; In common with his colleagues, \u0026ldquo;he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective\u0026rdquo;; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the \u0026ldquo;[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers \u0026ldquo; by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (\u0026ldquo;TCL\u0026rdquo;). Case favorably settled for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCraig Alexander v. a major international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(GA: DeKalb Country State Court)\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client\u0026rsquo;s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton\u0026rsquo;s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (\u0026ldquo;GM\u0026rdquo;) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSoundView Innovations v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client\u0026rsquo;s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLighthouse Consulting Group, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright\u0026rsquo;s decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM\u0026rsquo;s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParallel Iron v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eand US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInnova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital, LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eStambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"A great client-oriented attorney\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked “Patent 1000”","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"title":"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”","detail":"Washingtonian Magazine"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6942}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:20.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:20.000Z","searchable_text":"Baskin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"A great client-oriented attorney\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked “Patent 1000”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Asset Management\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washingtonian Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc. (D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.{{ FIELD }}In the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (“TCL”). Case favorably settled for client.{{ FIELD }}Encore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.{{ FIELD }}Craig Alexander v. a major international airline (GA: DeKalb Country State Court). Representing a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client’s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.{{ FIELD }}Hand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al. (D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.{{ FIELD }}Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. (N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.{{ FIELD }}Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton’s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.{{ FIELD }}SunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc (N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.{{ FIELD }}Encore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Symbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline (N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.{{ FIELD }}Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.{{ FIELD }}Amtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al (International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities. Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.{{ FIELD }}SoundView Innovations v. a major international airline (District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client’s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.{{ FIELD }}Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC (WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright’s decision.{{ FIELD }}Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM’s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.{{ FIELD }}EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.{{ FIELD }}Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC (Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.{{ FIELD }}NCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al (Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.{{ FIELD }}Anuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.{{ FIELD }}St. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.{{ FIELD }}Symbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.{{ FIELD }}Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.{{ FIELD }}Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.{{ FIELD }}Parallel Iron v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Aeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways. Lead counsel representing a major international airline and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Walker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics, et al.) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet). Walker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Innova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom). InNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Autoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies. Autoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Cyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).{{ FIELD }}CyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types. Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Garnet Digital LLC Litigation. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC Litigation, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Leon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis). Stambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).{{ FIELD }}MacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Autoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone. Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).{{ FIELD }}A major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).{{ FIELD }}Stephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25 years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.\nSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client’s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality. \nSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is “[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.” In common with his colleagues, “he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective”; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the “[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers “ by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\nSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA. Partner \"A great client-oriented attorney\" Chambers USA \"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\" Chambers USA Ranked “Patent 1000” Intellectual Asset Management Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers” Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present Recognized as a “Best Lawyer” Washingtonian Magazine Ohio University  Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Virginia Chair of Executive Area Board at American Cancer Society Board of Directors at ThanksUSA The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc. (D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data. In the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (“TCL”). Case favorably settled for client. Encore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation. Craig Alexander v. a major international airline (GA: DeKalb Country State Court). Representing a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client’s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool. Hand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al. (D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. (N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton’s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y. SunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc (N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid. Encore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims. Symbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline (N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes. Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices. Amtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al (International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities. Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234. SoundView Innovations v. a major international airline (District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client’s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses. Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC (WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright’s decision. Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM’s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team. EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology. Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC (Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device. NCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al (Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC. Anuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages. St. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction. Symbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes. Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems. Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds. Parallel Iron v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013). Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013). Aeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways. Lead counsel representing a major international airline and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011). Walker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics, et al.) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet). Walker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011). Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013). Innova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom). InNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010). Autoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies. Autoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010). Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011). Cyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011). CyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011). Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types. Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010). Garnet Digital LLC Litigation. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC Litigation, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011). Leon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis). Stambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011). MacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011). Autoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone. Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012). A major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).","searchable_name":"Stephen E. Baskin (Steve)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426402,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3251,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou, Head of the Paris Litigation Department, is specialized in Dispute Resolution in all its forms: in international arbitration, litigation before Civil, Commercial and Criminal Courts or in the context of settlements or mediation. She is also qualified to act as arbitrator and mediator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHer litigation practice includes commercial and business law, corporate law, unfair and parasitic competition, advertising and\u0026nbsp;entertainment, intellectual property, commercial leases and contracts, construction and product liability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe also has extensive experience in distribution agreements, especially in franchise.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou is highly ranked by Leaders League - Decideurs every year.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is fluent in English, French and Hebrew and conversant in Spanish.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"vanessa-benichou","email":"vbenichou@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFrench Government\u003c/strong\u003e before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Cl\u0026eacute;menceau in India.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, \u0026ldquo;Les Choristes,\u0026rdquo; and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of \u0026euro;550 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of Canada-based \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCaisse de D\u0026eacute;p\u0026ocirc;t et Placement du Qu\u0026eacute;bec\u003c/strong\u003e, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLebanese company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of an \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003einternational grain trading company\u003c/strong\u003e, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":6}]},"expertise":[{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Benichou","nick_name":"Vanessa","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Vanessa","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou, Head of the Paris Litigation Department, is specialized in Dispute Resolution in all its forms: in international arbitration, litigation before Civil, Commercial and Criminal Courts or in the context of settlements or mediation. She is also qualified to act as arbitrator and mediator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHer litigation practice includes commercial and business law, corporate law, unfair and parasitic competition, advertising and\u0026nbsp;entertainment, intellectual property, commercial leases and contracts, construction and product liability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe also has extensive experience in distribution agreements, especially in franchise.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou is highly ranked by Leaders League - Decideurs every year.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is fluent in English, French and Hebrew and conversant in Spanish.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFrench Government\u003c/strong\u003e before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Cl\u0026eacute;menceau in India.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, \u0026ldquo;Les Choristes,\u0026rdquo; and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of \u0026euro;550 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of Canada-based \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCaisse de D\u0026eacute;p\u0026ocirc;t et Placement du Qu\u0026eacute;bec\u003c/strong\u003e, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLebanese company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of an \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003einternational grain trading company\u003c/strong\u003e, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12236}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:28.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:28.000Z","searchable_text":"Benichou{{ FIELD }}Representation of the French Government before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Clémenceau in India.{{ FIELD }}Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, “Les Choristes,” and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading.{{ FIELD }}Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of €550 million.{{ FIELD }}Representation of Canada-based Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company.{{ FIELD }}Representation of a Lebanese company in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture.{{ FIELD }}Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement.{{ FIELD }}Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business.{{ FIELD }}Representation of an international grain trading company, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.{{ FIELD }}Vanessa Benichou, Head of the Paris Litigation Department, is specialized in Dispute Resolution in all its forms: in international arbitration, litigation before Civil, Commercial and Criminal Courts or in the context of settlements or mediation. She is also qualified to act as arbitrator and mediator. \nHer litigation practice includes commercial and business law, corporate law, unfair and parasitic competition, advertising and entertainment, intellectual property, commercial leases and contracts, construction and product liability. \nShe also has extensive experience in distribution agreements, especially in franchise. \nVanessa Benichou is highly ranked by Leaders League - Decideurs every year. \nShe is fluent in English, French and Hebrew and conversant in Spanish.  Vanessa R Benichou Partner Representation of the French Government before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Clémenceau in India. Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, “Les Choristes,” and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading. Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of €550 million. Representation of Canada-based Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company. Representation of a Lebanese company in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture. Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement. Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business. Representation of an international grain trading company, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.","searchable_name":"Vanessa Benichou","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":445617,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7308,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being \u0026ldquo;superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(IAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e (2022\u0026ndash;2025) and as a \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Up and Coming Practitioner\u0026rdquo; (2019, 2021). He is listed as a \u0026ldquo;Key Lawyer\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e (2019\u0026ndash;2025), named to \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation US\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;40 \u0026amp; Under List\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property (2017\u0026ndash;2020), and named as a \u0026ldquo;Rising Star\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property Litigation for \u003cem\u003eTexas Super Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e (2015\u0026ndash;2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar \u0026ldquo;bet the business\u0026rdquo; cases.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-bittner","email":"mbittner@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC\u003c/em\u003e (N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCaptivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (D. Neb.) \u0026ndash; Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEricsson, et al. v. LG, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG\u0026rsquo;s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e (E.D.Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eeDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees based on an exceptional case finding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.\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":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bittner","nick_name":"Michael","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable David J. Folsom, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2008 - 2009"}],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026 Patent Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under List” in Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020"},{"title":"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021–2025"},{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025"},{"title":"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025"},{"title":"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 "},{"title":"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bittner-2a796295/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being \u0026ldquo;superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(IAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e (2022\u0026ndash;2025) and as a \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Up and Coming Practitioner\u0026rdquo; (2019, 2021). He is listed as a \u0026ldquo;Key Lawyer\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e (2019\u0026ndash;2025), named to \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation US\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;40 \u0026amp; Under List\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property (2017\u0026ndash;2020), and named as a \u0026ldquo;Rising Star\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property Litigation for \u003cem\u003eTexas Super Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e (2015\u0026ndash;2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar \u0026ldquo;bet the business\u0026rdquo; cases.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC\u003c/em\u003e (N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCaptivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (D. Neb.) \u0026ndash; Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEricsson, et al. v. LG, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG\u0026rsquo;s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e (E.D.Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eeDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees based on an exceptional case finding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026 Patent Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under List” in Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020"},{"title":"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021–2025"},{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025"},{"title":"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025"},{"title":"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 "},{"title":"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13352}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-05T19:50:22.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-05T19:50:22.000Z","searchable_text":"Bittner{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026amp; Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2022–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Future Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2021–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2019–2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018\"}{{ FIELD }}SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (N.D. Tex.) – Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.{{ FIELD }}Captivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al. (D. Neb.) – Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.{{ FIELD }}Ericsson, et al. v. LG, et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG’s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.{{ FIELD }}Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al (E.D.Tex.) – Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.{{ FIELD }}YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) – Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice and an award of attorneys’ fees based on an exceptional case finding.{{ FIELD }}Clear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice.{{ FIELD }}GeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants (E.D. Tex.) – Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Michael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being “superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges” (IAM Patent 1000, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by Chambers USA and The Legal 500 US.\nMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at Markman hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\nMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in Chambers USA (2022–2025) and as a Chambers USA “Up and Coming Practitioner” (2019, 2021). He is listed as a “Key Lawyer” in The Legal 500 US in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the IAM Patent 1000 (2019–2025), named to Benchmark Litigation US’s “40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property (2017–2020), and named as a “Rising Star” in Intellectual Property Litigation for Texas Super Lawyers (2015–2020).\nMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar “bet the business” cases. Partner Litigation – Intellectual Property The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026 Litigation – Patent The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026 “500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026amp; Patent Litigation Lawdragon, 2022–2026 “Future Star” Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026 “40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020 Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2021–2025 “Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2019–2021 “Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025 Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach” IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection” IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025  “Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas Super Lawyers, 2015–2018 University of Texas  The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Texas Law Clerk, Honorable David J. Folsom, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (N.D. Tex.) – Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal. Captivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al. (D. Neb.) – Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting. Ericsson, et al. v. LG, et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG’s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology. Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al (E.D.Tex.) – Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial. YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) – Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms. eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice and an award of attorneys’ fees based on an exceptional case finding. Clear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice. GeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants (E.D. Tex.) – Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.","searchable_name":"Michael A. Bittner","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":429798,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1853,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRussell Blythe, a partner in our Business Litigation practice, has two decades of experience representing companies, universities,\u0026nbsp;and other institutions in disputes involving patent infringement, trademark infringement, trade secrets, unfair competition, and false advertising. Russell is adept at efficiently handling matters of any scale, from counseling\u0026nbsp;on potential disputes to leading multi-venue litigation. Russell has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging IP\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e as a leading lawyer for intellectual property litigation.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced litigator, Russell represents clients across\u0026nbsp;a variety of industries and technologies, including consumer products, food and beverage, hospitality, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, and polymer chemistry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRussell is experienced in all phases of litigation, including federal district and appellate courts. He\u0026nbsp;is also registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where he has handled dozens of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e reviews as an alternative to, or in parallel with, district court litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to intellectual property matters, Russell counsels companies in complex false advertising disputes. He represents clients with matters before the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau\u0026nbsp;and regularly consults on appropriate substantiation of advertising claims. His experience further includes actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRussell is an eight-time recipient of our firm\u0026rsquo;s Pro Bono Service Award\u0026nbsp;and previously received Common Cause Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Outstanding Citizen Award. He is a member of the Georgia Tech IP Advisory Board and sits on the board of Communities in Schools of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"russell-blythe","email":"rblythe@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBASF\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in patent infringement action relating to methods for electrolytic plating of copper onto semiconductor substrates. Representation included multiple arguments before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Federal Circuit, with the PTAB ultimately holding both patents asserted against BASF to be unpatentable and the Federal Circuit affirming.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUniversity of Georgia Athletic Association\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in trademark infringement case against company marketing unauthorized apparel and other merchandise.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eVital Proteins\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in false advertising dispute against a competitor related to advertising for collagen supplements and celebrity endorsement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSix Continents Hotels, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in bringing trademark infringement and false advertising claims against an online travel agency.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKimberly-Clark\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAvanos Medical\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a competitor false advertising suit regarding the labeling and advertising of Class II medical devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWebroot\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOpen Text\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in competitor-on-competitor patent cases against Trend Micro, CrowdStrike, Sophos Ltd., AO Kaspersky Lab, and Forcepoint involving antivirus and endpoint security software. Cases included proceedings in district court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and executive producers of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOuter Banks\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining dismissal of copyright infringement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented motion picture and television production company in trademark dispute against studio company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading home automation and security company in successfully defending multiple patent suits.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading U.S. manufacturing company in successfully obtaining dismissal of false advertising complaint filed in federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSuperior Essex\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against patent infringement claims related to high-speed telecommunications cables. Obtained summary judgment rulings that certain asserted patents were either not-infringed or invalid, and also that pre-suit damages were excluded for lack of patent marking. In a subsequent jury trial, the jury found that three additional asserted patents were invalid. One additional patent was found invalid after post-trial motions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading data center company in patent and other intellectual property matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting leading animal health company in connection with advertising matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting major U.S. retailer in connection with patent clearance, licensing, and dispute matters.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":58}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Blythe","nick_name":"Russell","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Russell","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Georgia Rising Star in Intellectual Property Litigation ","detail":"Super Lawyers and Atlanta Magazine"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/russell-blythe-8ba62b/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRussell Blythe, a partner in our Business Litigation practice, has two decades of experience representing companies, universities,\u0026nbsp;and other institutions in disputes involving patent infringement, trademark infringement, trade secrets, unfair competition, and false advertising. Russell is adept at efficiently handling matters of any scale, from counseling\u0026nbsp;on potential disputes to leading multi-venue litigation. Russell has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging IP\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e as a leading lawyer for intellectual property litigation.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced litigator, Russell represents clients across\u0026nbsp;a variety of industries and technologies, including consumer products, food and beverage, hospitality, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, and polymer chemistry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRussell is experienced in all phases of litigation, including federal district and appellate courts. He\u0026nbsp;is also registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where he has handled dozens of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e reviews as an alternative to, or in parallel with, district court litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to intellectual property matters, Russell counsels companies in complex false advertising disputes. He represents clients with matters before the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau\u0026nbsp;and regularly consults on appropriate substantiation of advertising claims. His experience further includes actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRussell is an eight-time recipient of our firm\u0026rsquo;s Pro Bono Service Award\u0026nbsp;and previously received Common Cause Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Outstanding Citizen Award. He is a member of the Georgia Tech IP Advisory Board and sits on the board of Communities in Schools of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBASF\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in patent infringement action relating to methods for electrolytic plating of copper onto semiconductor substrates. Representation included multiple arguments before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Federal Circuit, with the PTAB ultimately holding both patents asserted against BASF to be unpatentable and the Federal Circuit affirming.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUniversity of Georgia Athletic Association\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in trademark infringement case against company marketing unauthorized apparel and other merchandise.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eVital Proteins\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in false advertising dispute against a competitor related to advertising for collagen supplements and celebrity endorsement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSix Continents Hotels, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in bringing trademark infringement and false advertising claims against an online travel agency.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKimberly-Clark\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAvanos Medical\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a competitor false advertising suit regarding the labeling and advertising of Class II medical devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWebroot\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOpen Text\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in competitor-on-competitor patent cases against Trend Micro, CrowdStrike, Sophos Ltd., AO Kaspersky Lab, and Forcepoint involving antivirus and endpoint security software. Cases included proceedings in district court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and executive producers of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOuter Banks\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining dismissal of copyright infringement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented motion picture and television production company in trademark dispute against studio company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading home automation and security company in successfully defending multiple patent suits.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading U.S. manufacturing company in successfully obtaining dismissal of false advertising complaint filed in federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSuperior Essex\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against patent infringement claims related to high-speed telecommunications cables. Obtained summary judgment rulings that certain asserted patents were either not-infringed or invalid, and also that pre-suit damages were excluded for lack of patent marking. In a subsequent jury trial, the jury found that three additional asserted patents were invalid. One additional patent was found invalid after post-trial motions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading data center company in patent and other intellectual property matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting leading animal health company in connection with advertising matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting major U.S. retailer in connection with patent clearance, licensing, and dispute matters.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Georgia Rising Star in Intellectual Property Litigation ","detail":"Super Lawyers and Atlanta Magazine"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12832}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-06-10T17:54:31.000Z","updated_at":"2025-06-10T17:54:31.000Z","searchable_text":"Blythe{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Rising Star in Intellectual Property Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers and Atlanta Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented BASF in patent infringement action relating to methods for electrolytic plating of copper onto semiconductor substrates. Representation included multiple arguments before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Federal Circuit, with the PTAB ultimately holding both patents asserted against BASF to be unpatentable and the Federal Circuit affirming.{{ FIELD }}Represented University of Georgia Athletic Association in trademark infringement case against company marketing unauthorized apparel and other merchandise.{{ FIELD }}Represented Vital Proteins in false advertising dispute against a competitor related to advertising for collagen supplements and celebrity endorsement.{{ FIELD }}Represented Six Continents Hotels, Inc. in bringing trademark infringement and false advertising claims against an online travel agency.{{ FIELD }}Represented Kimberly-Clark and Avanos Medical in a competitor false advertising suit regarding the labeling and advertising of Class II medical devices.{{ FIELD }}Represented Webroot and Open Text in competitor-on-competitor patent cases against Trend Micro, CrowdStrike, Sophos Ltd., AO Kaspersky Lab, and Forcepoint involving antivirus and endpoint security software. Cases included proceedings in district court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board.{{ FIELD }}Represented Netflix and executive producers of Outer Banks in obtaining dismissal of copyright infringement action.{{ FIELD }}Represented motion picture and television production company in trademark dispute against studio company.{{ FIELD }}Represented leading home automation and security company in successfully defending multiple patent suits.{{ FIELD }}Represented leading U.S. manufacturing company in successfully obtaining dismissal of false advertising complaint filed in federal court.{{ FIELD }}Represented Superior Essex against patent infringement claims related to high-speed telecommunications cables. Obtained summary judgment rulings that certain asserted patents were either not-infringed or invalid, and also that pre-suit damages were excluded for lack of patent marking. In a subsequent jury trial, the jury found that three additional asserted patents were invalid. One additional patent was found invalid after post-trial motions.{{ FIELD }}Represented leading data center company in patent and other intellectual property matters.{{ FIELD }}Representing leading animal health company in connection with advertising matters.{{ FIELD }}Representing major U.S. retailer in connection with patent clearance, licensing, and dispute matters.{{ FIELD }}Russell Blythe, a partner in our Business Litigation practice, has two decades of experience representing companies, universities, and other institutions in disputes involving patent infringement, trademark infringement, trade secrets, unfair competition, and false advertising. Russell is adept at efficiently handling matters of any scale, from counseling on potential disputes to leading multi-venue litigation. Russell has been recognized by Chambers USA, Managing IP, and The Best Lawyers in America as a leading lawyer for intellectual property litigation. \nAn experienced litigator, Russell represents clients across a variety of industries and technologies, including consumer products, food and beverage, hospitality, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, and polymer chemistry.\nRussell is experienced in all phases of litigation, including federal district and appellate courts. He is also registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where he has handled dozens of inter partes reviews as an alternative to, or in parallel with, district court litigation.\nIn addition to intellectual property matters, Russell counsels companies in complex false advertising disputes. He represents clients with matters before the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau and regularly consults on appropriate substantiation of advertising claims. His experience further includes actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission.\nRussell is an eight-time recipient of our firm’s Pro Bono Service Award and previously received Common Cause Georgia’s Outstanding Citizen Award. He is a member of the Georgia Tech IP Advisory Board and sits on the board of Communities in Schools of Georgia. Russell E Blythe Partner Georgia Rising Star in Intellectual Property Litigation  Super Lawyers and Atlanta Magazine Georgia Institute of Technology  University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Georgia Represented BASF in patent infringement action relating to methods for electrolytic plating of copper onto semiconductor substrates. Representation included multiple arguments before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Federal Circuit, with the PTAB ultimately holding both patents asserted against BASF to be unpatentable and the Federal Circuit affirming. Represented University of Georgia Athletic Association in trademark infringement case against company marketing unauthorized apparel and other merchandise. Represented Vital Proteins in false advertising dispute against a competitor related to advertising for collagen supplements and celebrity endorsement. Represented Six Continents Hotels, Inc. in bringing trademark infringement and false advertising claims against an online travel agency. Represented Kimberly-Clark and Avanos Medical in a competitor false advertising suit regarding the labeling and advertising of Class II medical devices. Represented Webroot and Open Text in competitor-on-competitor patent cases against Trend Micro, CrowdStrike, Sophos Ltd., AO Kaspersky Lab, and Forcepoint involving antivirus and endpoint security software. Cases included proceedings in district court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Represented Netflix and executive producers of Outer Banks in obtaining dismissal of copyright infringement action. Represented motion picture and television production company in trademark dispute against studio company. Represented leading home automation and security company in successfully defending multiple patent suits. Represented leading U.S. manufacturing company in successfully obtaining dismissal of false advertising complaint filed in federal court. Represented Superior Essex against patent infringement claims related to high-speed telecommunications cables. Obtained summary judgment rulings that certain asserted patents were either not-infringed or invalid, and also that pre-suit damages were excluded for lack of patent marking. In a subsequent jury trial, the jury found that three additional asserted patents were invalid. One additional patent was found invalid after post-trial motions. Represented leading data center company in patent and other intellectual property matters. Representing leading animal health company in connection with advertising matters. Representing major U.S. retailer in connection with patent clearance, licensing, and dispute matters.","searchable_name":"Russell E. Blythe","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":447510,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5781,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.\u0026rdquo; - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his\u0026nbsp;client's business as a whole.\u0026nbsp;He\u0026nbsp;works closely with his client\u0026nbsp;to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for\u0026nbsp;aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business.\u0026nbsp;Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side\u0026rsquo;s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5,\u0026nbsp;Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and\u0026nbsp;Kodiak Robotics\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a\u0026nbsp;wide range\u0026nbsp;of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure\u0026nbsp;and protect\u0026nbsp;trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies\u0026nbsp;through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"shane-brun","email":"sbrun@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a cybersecurity company against a competitor\u0026rsquo;s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brun","nick_name":"Shane","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Shane","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\"","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2017"},{"title":"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor","detail":"The National Law Journal"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.\u0026rdquo; - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his\u0026nbsp;client's business as a whole.\u0026nbsp;He\u0026nbsp;works closely with his client\u0026nbsp;to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for\u0026nbsp;aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business.\u0026nbsp;Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side\u0026rsquo;s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5,\u0026nbsp;Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and\u0026nbsp;Kodiak Robotics\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a\u0026nbsp;wide range\u0026nbsp;of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure\u0026nbsp;and protect\u0026nbsp;trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies\u0026nbsp;through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShane\u0026nbsp;sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a cybersecurity company against a competitor\u0026rsquo;s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\"","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2017"},{"title":"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor","detail":"The National Law Journal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8412},{"id":8412}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-14T09:32:06.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-14T09:32:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Brun{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Cited by client as \\\" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The National Law Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}Defended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations.{{ FIELD }}Defended a cybersecurity company against a competitor’s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims.{{ FIELD }}Defended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case.{{ FIELD }}Defended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims.{{ FIELD }}Hired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client.{{ FIELD }}Defended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action.{{ FIELD }}Represented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.{{ FIELD }}\"Simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscapes, analysis and strategies.” - IAM Patent 1000. Shane views each engagement in the context of his client's business as a whole. He works closely with his client to first assess the risk or value associated with a particular matter and then to develop a strategy for aggressively pursuing his client's rights while never losing sight of the larger context of his client's overarching business. Shane has proven particularly adept at identifying and exploiting the other side’s weaknesses early in the case to position his clients for victory prior to trial.\nShane has served as lead counsel for companies such as Google, F5, Fitbit, Mandiant, Nikon, Hitachi, Kodak, and Kodiak Robotics in patent, trade secret, employee mobility and a wide range of commercial litigation and counseling matters. Shane also works with early-stage companies to identify, secure and protect trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark assets, including serving as a mentor attorney to startup companies through the Plug and Play Tech Center in Silicon Valley.\nShane devotes significant time to pro bono education rights litigation. He is currently lead counsel for a class of students with reading disabilities, including dyslexia, in a class action lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District. After four years of litigation, the parties reached a court-brokered settlement, including a Literacy Improvement Plan effecting a complete overhaul of BUSD's processes and programs for identifying, teaching and supporting children with reading disabilities. Shane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.\nShane also represented a class of English-learning students in California challenging, and obtaining an injunction prohibiting California's implementation of, the California High School Exit Examination.  \nShane sits on the Board for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles Partner Cited by client as \" simply the best at addressing threats through practical business landscape analysis and strategies\" IAM Patent 1000 Listed, The World's Leading Patent Professionals IAM Patent 1000, 2017 Recipient, Counsel to Counsel honor The National Law Journal University of Arkansas University of Arkansas School of Law University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Member, American Bar Association Member, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association Member, San Francisco Bar Association Board member, Western Center on Law \u0026amp; Poverty Member, Educational Foundation of Orinda and Arkansas Alumni Association Defended six Russian nationals and former employees of Russian search engine Rambler against fraud and breach of contract claims brought in a California federal court. The court dismissed the claims for failing to meet the applicable statutes of limitations. Defended a cybersecurity company against a competitor’s claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation brought by a multinational corporation in federal courts in Delaware and California. Disposed of the trade secret claims through a motion for a protective order after a year of litigation and obtained favorable claim constructions leading to the voluntary dismissal of the patent claims. Defended early-stage company in a bet-the-company patent litigation suit brought by larger competitor in federal district court in San Francisco, California. After a year of litigation, the court found the asserted patents to be directed at ineligible subject matter and dismissed the case. Defended networking and cybersecurity security company against a $40M breach-of-contract claim. Following the deposition of the plaintiff's in-house counsel on the last day of discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims. Hired by a Japanese multinational corporation following its loss in a competitor patent suit in the International Trade Commission. In the companion case in district court in San Francisco, California, obtained new claim constructions and negotiated a favorable settlement for the client, including patent cross-licenses and a nine-figure payment to client. Represented a Japanese manufacturer of consumer products asserting its pioneering plasma display patent against a competitor in federal district court in Texas. Obtained a nine-figure settlement payment one week before trial. Represented an imaging technology company enforcing its groundbreaking digital camera patents against larger competitor in both the ITC and in federal district court in California. Following the trial and a finding of infringement by the ITC, the cases settled for a high nine-figure payment to the client. Defended a wireless network company against a patent infringement action before the ITC and in federal district court in Oakland, California. The complainant withdrew its ITC complaint just weeks before trial. Won a summary judgment of non-infringement in the district court action. Represented a producer of audio products asserting claims of design patent and trade dress infringement against a Japanese multinational corporation in Los Angeles federal court. The case settled during arbitration with the immediate withdrawal of the infringing products from the market and assignment of design patents covering the infringing products to the client.","searchable_name":"Shane Brun","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447416,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7211,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNeel Chatterjee is an internationally recognized technology litigator and trial lawyer. He has a proven track record handling hard-to-win technology cases for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading companies and newest disruptive technology companies. His cases often break new ground in undefined areas of the law or are existential disputes for product lines and new business models. Clients frequently turn to Neel shortly before trial to take over hard-to-win cases. Neel has substantial expertise handling disputes related to patents, trade secrets, copyrights, internet law, and complex commercial technology issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel has led matters for some of Silicon Valley\u0026rsquo;s most legendary companies in their most significant technology disputes including groundbreaking cases for Facebook, Oracle, eBay, NVIDIA, LinkedIn, Logitech, and others. Notably, Neel defended Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook in the famed Winklevoss case that later served as the inspiration for the Academy Award winning film \u0026ldquo;The Social Network.\u0026rdquo; He helped develop and then later defended eBay with respect to its online transaction business model, creating important fundamental law that validated internet business models related to user generated content. He has prosecuted, defended and tried cases involving global patent litigation for NVIDIA as part of the smartphone patent wars. He also represented Anthony Levandowski, the star engineer at the center of the complex intellectual property dispute between Google and Uber related to self-driving car technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel previously clerked for the Honorable Patricia V. Trumbell in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the Honorable Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey in the Colorado Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel has been recognized as a top IP litigator and trailblazer by Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal, LawDragon and the IAM Global Leaders Guide. Chambers USA has described him as being \u0026ldquo;singled out for his abilities acting for hi-tech companies in patent infringement claims,\u0026rdquo; with \u0026ldquo;the ability to think outside the box\u0026rdquo; as well as having \u0026ldquo;in depth knowledge of patent law.\u0026rdquo; In addition, Chambers USA refers to him as being \u0026ldquo;knowledgeable, quick to learn, and truly innovative,\u0026rdquo; with providing \u0026ldquo;practical, business-minded patent advice\u0026rdquo; and a sensitivity \u0026ldquo;to the business objectives of patent litigation.\" Chambers Global recently recognized Neel as being \u0026ldquo;sought-after\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;valued for his strategic approach to contentious matters and his strong courtroom advocacy.\u0026rdquo; Chambers Global further stated that his peers say, \u0026ldquo;He is an outstanding lawyer who is beloved by his clients. He always puts in extra effort and really knows the law.\u0026rdquo; Most recently, IAM 1000 highlighted Neel as someone who \u0026ldquo;gives terrific legal advice and has seen a lot of success in court,\u0026rdquo; also remarking that \u0026ldquo;he exudes friendliness and confidence, and has the right personality to remain at the top.\u0026rdquo; Neel has also been recognized by U.S. News \u0026mdash; Best Lawyers in the field of patent and intellectual property litigation. In 2019, \u0026ldquo;Best Lawyers\u0026rdquo; named Neel the Trade Secret Lawyer of the Year. He was also named to the 2020 Lawyers of Color Power List and recognized by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association as a 2019 MCCA Rainmaker. Neel has also been repeatedly recognized as one of California\u0026rsquo;s Top 100 lawyers by the Daily Journal, as one of the top 500 Cyberlawyers by Law Dragon, and has been repeatedly recognized as a leading lawyer in commercial litigation.\u0026nbsp; Neel has also been recognized for lifetime achievement by Narika, a Bay Area-based organization that promotes women's independence, economic empowerment, and well-being by helping domestic violence survivors with advocacy, support, and education.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel serves or has served on numerous highly influential boards including serving as the President of the Board of Advisors of Vanderbilt University School of Law. For 23 years, he served on the Board of Directors of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. He currently serves on the boards of the Asian Pacific Fund, the Humane Society of Silicon Valley, the South Asian American Justice Collective, and AccessLex. He has also served on the National Advisory Committee of the National South Asian Bar Association. In addition to his board-level work, Neel has served on the Magistrate Selection Committee, the Patent Local Rules Committee, and the Federal Practice Program for the Northern District of California. He is also active in the Sedona Conference Patent Litigation section. As a passionate proponent of diversity, Neel also founded the Bay Area Diversity Career Fair.\u0026nbsp;Neel is a regularly invited speaker on the issues of intellectual property, internet law, litigating high-profile cases, diversity and inclusion, and mentorship.\u0026nbsp; The South Asian Bar Association of Northern California and the North American South Asian Bar Association have each recognized Neel for his strong leadership and mentorship of young lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"neel-chatterjee","email":"nchatterjee@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Chatterjee","nick_name":"","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, U.S. Magistrate Patricia v. Trumbull, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","years_held":"1995 - 1997"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Justice Mary Mullarkey, Colorado","years_held":"1994 - 1995"}],"first_name":"Neel","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2442,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1994-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Litigators in America ","detail":"Lawdragon 500 (2025)"},{"title":"Litigation - Intellectual Property, Litigation - Patent and Trade Secrets Law","detail":"Best Lawyers (2022-2023)"},{"title":"Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation – California and Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets","detail":"Chambers USA (2022-2025)"},{"title":"Intellectual Property – Nationwide ","detail":"Chambers USA (2025)"},{"title":"United States Hall of Fame for Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters)","detail":"Legal 500 US (2021-2024) "},{"title":"Intellectual Property: Patent","detail":"Global 2021 and 2022 "},{"title":"2021-2023 Litigation Star in California for his work in Intellectual Property ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation"},{"title":"Top IP litigator and trailblazer ","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal and the IAM Global Leaders Guide"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNeel Chatterjee is an internationally recognized technology litigator and trial lawyer. He has a proven track record handling hard-to-win technology cases for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading companies and newest disruptive technology companies. His cases often break new ground in undefined areas of the law or are existential disputes for product lines and new business models. Clients frequently turn to Neel shortly before trial to take over hard-to-win cases. Neel has substantial expertise handling disputes related to patents, trade secrets, copyrights, internet law, and complex commercial technology issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel has led matters for some of Silicon Valley\u0026rsquo;s most legendary companies in their most significant technology disputes including groundbreaking cases for Facebook, Oracle, eBay, NVIDIA, LinkedIn, Logitech, and others. Notably, Neel defended Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook in the famed Winklevoss case that later served as the inspiration for the Academy Award winning film \u0026ldquo;The Social Network.\u0026rdquo; He helped develop and then later defended eBay with respect to its online transaction business model, creating important fundamental law that validated internet business models related to user generated content. He has prosecuted, defended and tried cases involving global patent litigation for NVIDIA as part of the smartphone patent wars. He also represented Anthony Levandowski, the star engineer at the center of the complex intellectual property dispute between Google and Uber related to self-driving car technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel previously clerked for the Honorable Patricia V. Trumbell in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the Honorable Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey in the Colorado Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel has been recognized as a top IP litigator and trailblazer by Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal, LawDragon and the IAM Global Leaders Guide. Chambers USA has described him as being \u0026ldquo;singled out for his abilities acting for hi-tech companies in patent infringement claims,\u0026rdquo; with \u0026ldquo;the ability to think outside the box\u0026rdquo; as well as having \u0026ldquo;in depth knowledge of patent law.\u0026rdquo; In addition, Chambers USA refers to him as being \u0026ldquo;knowledgeable, quick to learn, and truly innovative,\u0026rdquo; with providing \u0026ldquo;practical, business-minded patent advice\u0026rdquo; and a sensitivity \u0026ldquo;to the business objectives of patent litigation.\" Chambers Global recently recognized Neel as being \u0026ldquo;sought-after\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;valued for his strategic approach to contentious matters and his strong courtroom advocacy.\u0026rdquo; Chambers Global further stated that his peers say, \u0026ldquo;He is an outstanding lawyer who is beloved by his clients. He always puts in extra effort and really knows the law.\u0026rdquo; Most recently, IAM 1000 highlighted Neel as someone who \u0026ldquo;gives terrific legal advice and has seen a lot of success in court,\u0026rdquo; also remarking that \u0026ldquo;he exudes friendliness and confidence, and has the right personality to remain at the top.\u0026rdquo; Neel has also been recognized by U.S. News \u0026mdash; Best Lawyers in the field of patent and intellectual property litigation. In 2019, \u0026ldquo;Best Lawyers\u0026rdquo; named Neel the Trade Secret Lawyer of the Year. He was also named to the 2020 Lawyers of Color Power List and recognized by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association as a 2019 MCCA Rainmaker. Neel has also been repeatedly recognized as one of California\u0026rsquo;s Top 100 lawyers by the Daily Journal, as one of the top 500 Cyberlawyers by Law Dragon, and has been repeatedly recognized as a leading lawyer in commercial litigation.\u0026nbsp; Neel has also been recognized for lifetime achievement by Narika, a Bay Area-based organization that promotes women's independence, economic empowerment, and well-being by helping domestic violence survivors with advocacy, support, and education.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeel serves or has served on numerous highly influential boards including serving as the President of the Board of Advisors of Vanderbilt University School of Law. For 23 years, he served on the Board of Directors of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. He currently serves on the boards of the Asian Pacific Fund, the Humane Society of Silicon Valley, the South Asian American Justice Collective, and AccessLex. He has also served on the National Advisory Committee of the National South Asian Bar Association. In addition to his board-level work, Neel has served on the Magistrate Selection Committee, the Patent Local Rules Committee, and the Federal Practice Program for the Northern District of California. He is also active in the Sedona Conference Patent Litigation section. As a passionate proponent of diversity, Neel also founded the Bay Area Diversity Career Fair.\u0026nbsp;Neel is a regularly invited speaker on the issues of intellectual property, internet law, litigating high-profile cases, diversity and inclusion, and mentorship.\u0026nbsp; The South Asian Bar Association of Northern California and the North American South Asian Bar Association have each recognized Neel for his strong leadership and mentorship of young lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Litigators in America ","detail":"Lawdragon 500 (2025)"},{"title":"Litigation - Intellectual Property, Litigation - Patent and Trade Secrets Law","detail":"Best Lawyers (2022-2023)"},{"title":"Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation – California and Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets","detail":"Chambers USA (2022-2025)"},{"title":"Intellectual Property – Nationwide ","detail":"Chambers USA (2025)"},{"title":"United States Hall of Fame for Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters)","detail":"Legal 500 US (2021-2024) "},{"title":"Intellectual Property: Patent","detail":"Global 2021 and 2022 "},{"title":"2021-2023 Litigation Star in California for his work in Intellectual Property ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation"},{"title":"Top IP litigator and trailblazer ","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal and the IAM Global Leaders Guide"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12909}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-08T05:07:12.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-08T05:07:12.000Z","searchable_text":"Chatterjee{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Litigators in America \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon 500 (2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation - Intellectual Property, Litigation - Patent and Trade Secrets Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers (2022-2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation – California and Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2022-2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Property – Nationwide \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"United States Hall of Fame for Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US (2021-2024) \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Property: Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global 2021 and 2022 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2021-2023 Litigation Star in California for his work in Intellectual Property \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top IP litigator and trailblazer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal and the IAM Global Leaders Guide\"}{{ FIELD }}Neel Chatterjee is an internationally recognized technology litigator and trial lawyer. He has a proven track record handling hard-to-win technology cases for some of the world’s leading companies and newest disruptive technology companies. His cases often break new ground in undefined areas of the law or are existential disputes for product lines and new business models. Clients frequently turn to Neel shortly before trial to take over hard-to-win cases. Neel has substantial expertise handling disputes related to patents, trade secrets, copyrights, internet law, and complex commercial technology issues. \nNeel has led matters for some of Silicon Valley’s most legendary companies in their most significant technology disputes including groundbreaking cases for Facebook, Oracle, eBay, NVIDIA, LinkedIn, Logitech, and others. Notably, Neel defended Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook in the famed Winklevoss case that later served as the inspiration for the Academy Award winning film “The Social Network.” He helped develop and then later defended eBay with respect to its online transaction business model, creating important fundamental law that validated internet business models related to user generated content. He has prosecuted, defended and tried cases involving global patent litigation for NVIDIA as part of the smartphone patent wars. He also represented Anthony Levandowski, the star engineer at the center of the complex intellectual property dispute between Google and Uber related to self-driving car technology. \nNeel previously clerked for the Honorable Patricia V. Trumbell in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the Honorable Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey in the Colorado Supreme Court. \nNeel has been recognized as a top IP litigator and trailblazer by Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal, LawDragon and the IAM Global Leaders Guide. Chambers USA has described him as being “singled out for his abilities acting for hi-tech companies in patent infringement claims,” with “the ability to think outside the box” as well as having “in depth knowledge of patent law.” In addition, Chambers USA refers to him as being “knowledgeable, quick to learn, and truly innovative,” with providing “practical, business-minded patent advice” and a sensitivity “to the business objectives of patent litigation.\" Chambers Global recently recognized Neel as being “sought-after” and “valued for his strategic approach to contentious matters and his strong courtroom advocacy.” Chambers Global further stated that his peers say, “He is an outstanding lawyer who is beloved by his clients. He always puts in extra effort and really knows the law.” Most recently, IAM 1000 highlighted Neel as someone who “gives terrific legal advice and has seen a lot of success in court,” also remarking that “he exudes friendliness and confidence, and has the right personality to remain at the top.” Neel has also been recognized by U.S. News — Best Lawyers in the field of patent and intellectual property litigation. In 2019, “Best Lawyers” named Neel the Trade Secret Lawyer of the Year. He was also named to the 2020 Lawyers of Color Power List and recognized by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association as a 2019 MCCA Rainmaker. Neel has also been repeatedly recognized as one of California’s Top 100 lawyers by the Daily Journal, as one of the top 500 Cyberlawyers by Law Dragon, and has been repeatedly recognized as a leading lawyer in commercial litigation.  Neel has also been recognized for lifetime achievement by Narika, a Bay Area-based organization that promotes women's independence, economic empowerment, and well-being by helping domestic violence survivors with advocacy, support, and education. \nNeel serves or has served on numerous highly influential boards including serving as the President of the Board of Advisors of Vanderbilt University School of Law. For 23 years, he served on the Board of Directors of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. He currently serves on the boards of the Asian Pacific Fund, the Humane Society of Silicon Valley, the South Asian American Justice Collective, and AccessLex. He has also served on the National Advisory Committee of the National South Asian Bar Association. In addition to his board-level work, Neel has served on the Magistrate Selection Committee, the Patent Local Rules Committee, and the Federal Practice Program for the Northern District of California. He is also active in the Sedona Conference Patent Litigation section. As a passionate proponent of diversity, Neel also founded the Bay Area Diversity Career Fair. Neel is a regularly invited speaker on the issues of intellectual property, internet law, litigating high-profile cases, diversity and inclusion, and mentorship.  The South Asian Bar Association of Northern California and the North American South Asian Bar Association have each recognized Neel for his strong leadership and mentorship of young lawyers. Partner Leading Litigators in America  Lawdragon 500 (2025) Litigation - Intellectual Property, Litigation - Patent and Trade Secrets Law Best Lawyers (2022-2023) Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation – California and Intellectual Property: Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets Chambers USA (2022-2025) Intellectual Property – Nationwide  Chambers USA (2025) United States Hall of Fame for Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters) Legal 500 US (2021-2024)  Intellectual Property: Patent Global 2021 and 2022  2021-2023 Litigation Star in California for his work in Intellectual Property  Benchmark Litigation Top IP litigator and trailblazer  Intellectual Asset Management, Managing IP, Chambers, Benchmark Litigation, National Law Journal, the Daily Journal and the IAM Global Leaders Guide Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit California California Bar Association Board of Directors of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, Board Member Asia Pacific Fund, Board Member National Advisory Committee of the National South Asian Bar Association, Board Member Served on the Magistrate Selection Committee, the Patent Local Rules Committee, and the Federal Practice Program for the Northern District of California Bay Area Diversity Career Fair, Founder Judicial Clerk, U.S. Magistrate Patricia v. Trumbull, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judicial Clerk, Justice Mary Mullarkey, Colorado","searchable_name":"Neel Chatterjee","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":447581,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4212,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAaron Craig is one of the leading business litigation and unfair competition business trial lawyers in California and is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Craig represents clients in a wide variety of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals, and logistics companies.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Craig specializes in complex, bespoke cases, and has an undefeated record in both jury and bench trials as first or second chair.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThroughout his 22 years of practice, Mr. Craig has unfailingly won his clients\u0026rsquo; most important IP and unfair competition business disputes, leading to his outstanding work being recognized by Southern California Super Lawyers, Los Angeles Daily Journal, Law360, Wolters Kluwer Antitrust Law Daily, Variety and other leading publications.\u0026nbsp; Some examples follow: [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePresently defending Israeli cyber intelligence company NSO Group against extremely high profile Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims brought by WhatsApp, Facebook/Meta, and Apple.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCopyright and Entertainment:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Burbank High School\u0026rsquo;s vocal music department and its award-winning music teacher Brett Carroll in a landmark case, prevailing on summary judgment against a music licensing company\u0026rsquo;s effort to create a new business model and revenue stream at the expense of the national high school show choir community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended reality television star in litigation involving employment matters and \u0026nbsp;negligence claims; advised in the establishment of a nonprofit foundation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrademark:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising and representing a leading provider of telehealth behavioral services in a likelihood of confusion and priority dispute against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended shoe manufacturer in U.S. District Court and International Trade Commission proceedings brought by Converse and Nike, leading to invalidation of the Converse All Stars \u0026ldquo;midsole stripe\u0026rdquo; trademark.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on infringement and registrability issues at TTAB on behalf of a California bank against consulting company seeking to register confusingly similar mark.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompetition in the Pharmaceutical Industry:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon published, precedent-setting U.S. District Court cases for Allergan and Hope Pharmaceuticals against compounding pharmacies and outsourcing facilities, obtaining permanent injunctions and monetary awards against the defendants\u0026rsquo; unlawful and unfair sale of unapproved drugs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent and International Trade Commission:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObtained the then-highest ever violation-phase penalty from the International Trade Commission for Seiko Epson and Epson America against Chinese and American ink cartridge manufacturers and sellers, and managed portfolio of parallel U.S. District Court cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor Micron Technologies, defeated patent infringement claims brought by Rambus relating to technologies adopted by JDEC as industry standard for SDRAM computer memory chips.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier in his career, Mr. Craig worked for three years in Paramount Pictures\u0026rsquo; Motion Picture Legal Affairs, focusing on copyright issues and motion picture production (Team America, School of Rock).\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mr. Craig began his career at Quinn Emanuel where he practiced for eight years.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Craig was a partner in Fox Rothschild\u0026rsquo;s business litigation group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Craig\u0026rsquo;s articles have been published in the Hollywood Reporter, the Computer Law Review and Technology Journal, U.S. News and World Report, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.\u0026nbsp; He serves on the planning committee for the USC Gould School of Law Intellectual Property Institute, and is a two-time Jeopardy! champion.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"aaron-craig","email":"acraig@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Craig","nick_name":"Aaron","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Aaron","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2605,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1999-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Fulbright Professional Specialist ","detail":"2025-2026"},{"title":"Leading Commercial Litigators List","detail":"Los Angeles Daily Journal - 2026"},{"title":"Named \"Southern California Super Lawyer\"","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAaron Craig is one of the leading business litigation and unfair competition business trial lawyers in California and is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Craig represents clients in a wide variety of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals, and logistics companies.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Craig specializes in complex, bespoke cases, and has an undefeated record in both jury and bench trials as first or second chair.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThroughout his 22 years of practice, Mr. Craig has unfailingly won his clients\u0026rsquo; most important IP and unfair competition business disputes, leading to his outstanding work being recognized by Southern California Super Lawyers, Los Angeles Daily Journal, Law360, Wolters Kluwer Antitrust Law Daily, Variety and other leading publications.\u0026nbsp; Some examples follow: [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePresently defending Israeli cyber intelligence company NSO Group against extremely high profile Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims brought by WhatsApp, Facebook/Meta, and Apple.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCopyright and Entertainment:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Burbank High School\u0026rsquo;s vocal music department and its award-winning music teacher Brett Carroll in a landmark case, prevailing on summary judgment against a music licensing company\u0026rsquo;s effort to create a new business model and revenue stream at the expense of the national high school show choir community.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended reality television star in litigation involving employment matters and \u0026nbsp;negligence claims; advised in the establishment of a nonprofit foundation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrademark:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising and representing a leading provider of telehealth behavioral services in a likelihood of confusion and priority dispute against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended shoe manufacturer in U.S. District Court and International Trade Commission proceedings brought by Converse and Nike, leading to invalidation of the Converse All Stars \u0026ldquo;midsole stripe\u0026rdquo; trademark.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on infringement and registrability issues at TTAB on behalf of a California bank against consulting company seeking to register confusingly similar mark.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompetition in the Pharmaceutical Industry:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon published, precedent-setting U.S. District Court cases for Allergan and Hope Pharmaceuticals against compounding pharmacies and outsourcing facilities, obtaining permanent injunctions and monetary awards against the defendants\u0026rsquo; unlawful and unfair sale of unapproved drugs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent and International Trade Commission:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObtained the then-highest ever violation-phase penalty from the International Trade Commission for Seiko Epson and Epson America against Chinese and American ink cartridge manufacturers and sellers, and managed portfolio of parallel U.S. District Court cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor Micron Technologies, defeated patent infringement claims brought by Rambus relating to technologies adopted by JDEC as industry standard for SDRAM computer memory chips.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier in his career, Mr. Craig worked for three years in Paramount Pictures\u0026rsquo; Motion Picture Legal Affairs, focusing on copyright issues and motion picture production (Team America, School of Rock).\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mr. Craig began his career at Quinn Emanuel where he practiced for eight years.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Craig was a partner in Fox Rothschild\u0026rsquo;s business litigation group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Craig\u0026rsquo;s articles have been published in the Hollywood Reporter, the Computer Law Review and Technology Journal, U.S. News and World Report, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.\u0026nbsp; He serves on the planning committee for the USC Gould School of Law Intellectual Property Institute, and is a two-time Jeopardy! champion.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Fulbright Professional Specialist ","detail":"2025-2026"},{"title":"Leading Commercial Litigators List","detail":"Los Angeles Daily Journal - 2026"},{"title":"Named \"Southern California Super Lawyer\"","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7179}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-16T14:08:08.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-16T14:08:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Craig{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fulbright Professional Specialist \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2025-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Commercial Litigators List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Daily Journal - 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named \\\"Southern California Super Lawyer\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Aaron Craig is one of the leading business litigation and unfair competition business trial lawyers in California and is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group.  Mr. Craig represents clients in a wide variety of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals, and logistics companies.  Mr. Craig specializes in complex, bespoke cases, and has an undefeated record in both jury and bench trials as first or second chair.\nThroughout his 22 years of practice, Mr. Craig has unfailingly won his clients’ most important IP and unfair competition business disputes, leading to his outstanding work being recognized by Southern California Super Lawyers, Los Angeles Daily Journal, Law360, Wolters Kluwer Antitrust Law Daily, Variety and other leading publications.  Some examples follow: \nTechnology:\nPresently defending Israeli cyber intelligence company NSO Group against extremely high profile Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims brought by WhatsApp, Facebook/Meta, and Apple.\nCopyright and Entertainment:\nRepresented Burbank High School’s vocal music department and its award-winning music teacher Brett Carroll in a landmark case, prevailing on summary judgment against a music licensing company’s effort to create a new business model and revenue stream at the expense of the national high school show choir community.\nSuccessfully defended reality television star in litigation involving employment matters and  negligence claims; advised in the establishment of a nonprofit foundation.\nTrademark:\nAdvising and representing a leading provider of telehealth behavioral services in a likelihood of confusion and priority dispute against a competitor.\nSuccessfully defended shoe manufacturer in U.S. District Court and International Trade Commission proceedings brought by Converse and Nike, leading to invalidation of the Converse All Stars “midsole stripe” trademark.\nPrevailed on infringement and registrability issues at TTAB on behalf of a California bank against consulting company seeking to register confusingly similar mark.\nCompetition in the Pharmaceutical Industry:\nWon published, precedent-setting U.S. District Court cases for Allergan and Hope Pharmaceuticals against compounding pharmacies and outsourcing facilities, obtaining permanent injunctions and monetary awards against the defendants’ unlawful and unfair sale of unapproved drugs.\nPatent and International Trade Commission:\nObtained the then-highest ever violation-phase penalty from the International Trade Commission for Seiko Epson and Epson America against Chinese and American ink cartridge manufacturers and sellers, and managed portfolio of parallel U.S. District Court cases.\nFor Micron Technologies, defeated patent infringement claims brought by Rambus relating to technologies adopted by JDEC as industry standard for SDRAM computer memory chips.\nEarlier in his career, Mr. Craig worked for three years in Paramount Pictures’ Motion Picture Legal Affairs, focusing on copyright issues and motion picture production (Team America, School of Rock).   Mr. Craig began his career at Quinn Emanuel where he practiced for eight years.  Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Craig was a partner in Fox Rothschild’s business litigation group.\nMr. Craig’s articles have been published in the Hollywood Reporter, the Computer Law Review and Technology Journal, U.S. News and World Report, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.  He serves on the planning committee for the USC Gould School of Law Intellectual Property Institute, and is a two-time Jeopardy! champion. Partner Fulbright Professional Specialist  2025-2026 Leading Commercial Litigators List Los Angeles Daily Journal - 2026 Named \"Southern California Super Lawyer\" Super Lawyers, 2018 Yale University Yale Law School Yale University Yale Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California","searchable_name":"Aaron Craig","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":445859,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7310,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAhtoosa Dale is a trial lawyer with a focus on patent litigation and complex disputes. She combines her technical and legal training to focus on\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eIP litigation\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003espanning multiple technologies and business disputes spanning various industries.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAhtoosa focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation in various industries and IP litigation across differing technologies. She advises industry-leading clients on intricate business matters and IP-related issues across a broad spectrum of technologies, such as computer systems and architectures, virtual systems, mobile applications, networking, and medical devices. She also has experience representing corporations and individuals in business matters including intellectual property, employment and business disputes, class actions, consumer privacy, and product liability.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAhtoosa has been a team member in several trials. Her courtroom and stand-up experience span multiple venues, as she has significant experience arguing hearings in both trial court and arbitration settings, taking and defending witnesses at depositions, preparing witnesses to give testimony at trials and hearings, drafting substantive briefs in both trial and appellate court, and putting on and cross-examining witnesses at trial. She also spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where she tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict. Early in her career, she served as second chair in a civil pro bono trial in federal court, representing and successfully obtaining all requested relief on behalf of an inmate in Texas state prison related to his ability to practice certain religious tenets while imprisoned.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Ahtoosa served as a Judicial Clerk for the Honorable Kimberly Priest Johnson for the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas. She has undergraduate degrees in computer engineering and mathematics and has experience as a software developer for hospital e-documentation applications. Ahtoosa has a working knowledge of C++, Java, C#, and XML.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ahtoosa-dale","email":"adale@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant Medtronic in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Ahtoosa and her team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Ryan Hardin and Andrew Hill, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues, the case settled days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFreshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) Counsel for Freshworks in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSieler v. Atieva Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) Counsel for Atieva Inc. in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMatch Group v. Muzmatch Limited\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client Unbnd and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party\u0026rsquo;s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd\u0026rsquo;s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award on appeal, and awarded attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees to Unbnd for the appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRanieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant AdvoCare in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.\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":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Dale","nick_name":"Ahtoosa","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Honorable Kimberly Priest Johnson, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2016 - 2017"}],"first_name":"Ahtoosa","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":181,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2016-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Intellectual Property Law","detail":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026"},{"title":"Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026"},{"title":"Intellectual Property – Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2026"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Under 40”","detail":"D Magazine, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized within the Top 250","detail":"Patexia’s Patent Litigation Report, 2025"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAhtoosa Dale is a trial lawyer with a focus on patent litigation and complex disputes. She combines her technical and legal training to focus on\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eIP litigation\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003espanning multiple technologies and business disputes spanning various industries.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAhtoosa focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation in various industries and IP litigation across differing technologies. She advises industry-leading clients on intricate business matters and IP-related issues across a broad spectrum of technologies, such as computer systems and architectures, virtual systems, mobile applications, networking, and medical devices. She also has experience representing corporations and individuals in business matters including intellectual property, employment and business disputes, class actions, consumer privacy, and product liability.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAhtoosa has been a team member in several trials. Her courtroom and stand-up experience span multiple venues, as she has significant experience arguing hearings in both trial court and arbitration settings, taking and defending witnesses at depositions, preparing witnesses to give testimony at trials and hearings, drafting substantive briefs in both trial and appellate court, and putting on and cross-examining witnesses at trial. She also spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where she tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict. Early in her career, she served as second chair in a civil pro bono trial in federal court, representing and successfully obtaining all requested relief on behalf of an inmate in Texas state prison related to his ability to practice certain religious tenets while imprisoned.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Ahtoosa served as a Judicial Clerk for the Honorable Kimberly Priest Johnson for the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas. She has undergraduate degrees in computer engineering and mathematics and has experience as a software developer for hospital e-documentation applications. Ahtoosa has a working knowledge of C++, Java, C#, and XML.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant Medtronic in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Ahtoosa and her team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Ryan Hardin and Andrew Hill, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues, the case settled days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFreshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) Counsel for Freshworks in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSieler v. Atieva Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) Counsel for Atieva Inc. in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMatch Group v. Muzmatch Limited\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client Unbnd and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party\u0026rsquo;s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd\u0026rsquo;s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award on appeal, and awarded attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees to Unbnd for the appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRanieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant AdvoCare in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Intellectual Property Law","detail":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026"},{"title":"Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026"},{"title":"Intellectual Property – Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026"},{"title":"40 \u0026 Under","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2026"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Under 40”","detail":"D Magazine, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized within the Top 250","detail":"Patexia’s Patent Litigation Report, 2025"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13342}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-16T15:51:41.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-16T15:51:41.000Z","searchable_text":"Dale{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Property Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Property – Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 \u0026amp; Under\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyers Under 40”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized within the Top 250\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Patexia’s Patent Litigation Report, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}Patent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation\nTMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant Medtronic in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Ahtoosa and her team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.{{ FIELD }}Hardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Ryan Hardin and Andrew Hill, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and Daubert issues, the case settled days before trial.{{ FIELD }}Freshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC (D. Del.) Counsel for Freshworks in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.{{ FIELD }}Sieler v. Atieva Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Counsel for Atieva Inc. in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.{{ FIELD }}Match Group v. Muzmatch Limited (W.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Matters\nUnbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al. (FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client Unbnd and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party’s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd’s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award on appeal, and awarded attorney’s fees to Unbnd for the appeal.{{ FIELD }}Ranieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al. (N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant AdvoCare in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.{{ FIELD }}Ahtoosa Dale is a trial lawyer with a focus on patent litigation and complex disputes. She combines her technical and legal training to focus on IP litigation spanning multiple technologies and business disputes spanning various industries. \nAhtoosa focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation in various industries and IP litigation across differing technologies. She advises industry-leading clients on intricate business matters and IP-related issues across a broad spectrum of technologies, such as computer systems and architectures, virtual systems, mobile applications, networking, and medical devices. She also has experience representing corporations and individuals in business matters including intellectual property, employment and business disputes, class actions, consumer privacy, and product liability. \nAhtoosa has been a team member in several trials. Her courtroom and stand-up experience span multiple venues, as she has significant experience arguing hearings in both trial court and arbitration settings, taking and defending witnesses at depositions, preparing witnesses to give testimony at trials and hearings, drafting substantive briefs in both trial and appellate court, and putting on and cross-examining witnesses at trial. She also spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where she tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict. Early in her career, she served as second chair in a civil pro bono trial in federal court, representing and successfully obtaining all requested relief on behalf of an inmate in Texas state prison related to his ability to practice certain religious tenets while imprisoned.\nPrior to joining the firm, Ahtoosa served as a Judicial Clerk for the Honorable Kimberly Priest Johnson for the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas. She has undergraduate degrees in computer engineering and mathematics and has experience as a software developer for hospital e-documentation applications. Ahtoosa has a working knowledge of C++, Java, C#, and XML. Partner Intellectual Property Law Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026 Patent Litigation Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026 Intellectual Property – Litigation Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®, 2026 40 \u0026amp; Under Benchmark Litigation, 2026 “Best Lawyers Under 40” D Magazine, 2025 Recognized within the Top 250 Patexia’s Patent Litigation Report, 2025 Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law Baylor University Baylor University School of Law Texas Member, Dallas Bar Association Programming Co-Chair, ChIPs USPTO Chapter Member, Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn American Inn of Court, 2022-2024 Member, Texas Association Against Sexual Assault Judicial Clerk, Honorable Kimberly Priest Johnson, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Patent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation\nTMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant Medtronic in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Ahtoosa and her team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement. Hardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Ryan Hardin and Andrew Hill, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and Daubert issues, the case settled days before trial. Freshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC (D. Del.) Counsel for Freshworks in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled. Sieler v. Atieva Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Counsel for Atieva Inc. in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva. Match Group v. Muzmatch Limited (W.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution. Commercial Litigation and Other Matters\nUnbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al. (FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client Unbnd and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party’s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd’s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award on appeal, and awarded attorney’s fees to Unbnd for the appeal. Ranieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al. (N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant AdvoCare in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.","searchable_name":"Ahtoosa A. Dale","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":426320,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2435,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmina Dammann specializes in environmental law and litigation.\u0026nbsp; She has extensive experience representing multinational corporations in the automotive, energy and pharma sectors.\u0026nbsp; Her practice includes defending clients in governmental investigations and enforcement actions, as well as in federal and state court litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmina has many years of experience representing German and U.S. blue chip companies in both U.S. and German proceedings, as well as in transnational matters. A particular focus of her practice is on advising German companies facing litigation or governmental investigations in the United States. This includes representing German clients before U.S. agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB); it also involves coordinating parallel proceedings in the United States and Germany.\u0026nbsp; Amina \u0026nbsp;holds U.S. degrees from Harvard and Texas and has also obtained the two German state exams in law as well as a doctorate in law from Frankfurt University.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications and Awards\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVacating Arbitration Awards for Mistake of Fact\u003c/em\u003e, 27 Review of Litigation 441\u0026ndash;512 (2008); honored with the Vinson \u0026amp; Elkins LLP Outstanding Note Award\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull;\u0026nbsp; Die Beschwerdekammern der europ\u0026auml;ischen Agenturen [The Boards of Appeal of the European Agencies], Peter Lang, 2004; honored with the Baker \u0026amp; McKenzie Award for best dissertation in the area of business law\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"amina-dammann","email":"adammann@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp class=\"Base\"\u003eAmina Dammann\u0026rsquo;s experience includes the following matters:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented German car manufacturer in environmental enforcement action before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp class=\"Base\"\u003eRepresented German car manufacturer in litigation and governmental investigations regarding disputes over diesel emissions standards;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented New General Motors in litigation relating to ignition switch;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eS3 Graphics Co., Ltd. v. ATI Technologies ULC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eRepresentation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd., et al.\u003c/em\u003e Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Chevron in litigation arising out of an explosion at a refinery;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil refinery owner in arbitration dispute arising out of a refinery construction project in Colombia;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global wind farm developer in arbitration dispute arising out of a long-term turbine service agreement;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKeranos, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e Representation of Microchip and other defendants in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, filed in the Eastern District of Texas;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrochip Technology Inc. et al. v. United Module Corp. et al.\u003c/em\u003e(and related cases).\u0026nbsp; Representation of Microchip, Silicon Storage Technology and other declaratory judgment plaintiffs in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, pending in the Eastern District of Texas;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corporation v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Occidental in litigation to assert rights of 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 Utility Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Occidental in state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rate that must be paid to wind-generating facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and implementing regulations, filed in Texas state and federal courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of 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.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture et al. v. CEMEX Construction Material Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of CEMEX in a lawsuit concerning a plant construction with multi-million dollar cost overrun and construction delays, filed in Florida state court (Business Court Division).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of patent holder in a paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePennfield Oil Company d/b/a Pennfield Animal Health v. Alpharma Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Alpharma in a false advertising action arising from Alpharma advertisements that report the results of pharmaceutical research studies, filed in the District of Nebraska.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Alpharma in a lawsuit regarding the breach of a trademark license agreement and the infringement of Alpharma\u0026rsquo;s trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Dammann","nick_name":"Amina","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Amina","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmina Dammann specializes in environmental law and litigation.\u0026nbsp; She has extensive experience representing multinational corporations in the automotive, energy and pharma sectors.\u0026nbsp; Her practice includes defending clients in governmental investigations and enforcement actions, as well as in federal and state court litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmina has many years of experience representing German and U.S. blue chip companies in both U.S. and German proceedings, as well as in transnational matters. A particular focus of her practice is on advising German companies facing litigation or governmental investigations in the United States. This includes representing German clients before U.S. agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB); it also involves coordinating parallel proceedings in the United States and Germany.\u0026nbsp; Amina \u0026nbsp;holds U.S. degrees from Harvard and Texas and has also obtained the two German state exams in law as well as a doctorate in law from Frankfurt University.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications and Awards\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVacating Arbitration Awards for Mistake of Fact\u003c/em\u003e, 27 Review of Litigation 441\u0026ndash;512 (2008); honored with the Vinson \u0026amp; Elkins LLP Outstanding Note Award\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull;\u0026nbsp; Die Beschwerdekammern der europ\u0026auml;ischen Agenturen [The Boards of Appeal of the European Agencies], Peter Lang, 2004; honored with the Baker \u0026amp; McKenzie Award for best dissertation in the area of business law\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp class=\"Base\"\u003eAmina Dammann\u0026rsquo;s experience includes the following matters:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented German car manufacturer in environmental enforcement action before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp class=\"Base\"\u003eRepresented German car manufacturer in litigation and governmental investigations regarding disputes over diesel emissions standards;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented New General Motors in litigation relating to ignition switch;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eS3 Graphics Co., Ltd. v. ATI Technologies ULC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eRepresentation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd., et al.\u003c/em\u003e Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Chevron in litigation arising out of an explosion at a refinery;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil refinery owner in arbitration dispute arising out of a refinery construction project in Colombia;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global wind farm developer in arbitration dispute arising out of a long-term turbine service agreement;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKeranos, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e Representation of Microchip and other defendants in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, filed in the Eastern District of Texas;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrochip Technology Inc. et al. v. United Module Corp. et al.\u003c/em\u003e(and related cases).\u0026nbsp; Representation of Microchip, Silicon Storage Technology and other declaratory judgment plaintiffs in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, pending in the Eastern District of Texas;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corporation v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Occidental in litigation to assert rights of 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 Utility Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Occidental in state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rate that must be paid to wind-generating facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and implementing regulations, filed in Texas state and federal courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of 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.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture et al. v. CEMEX Construction Material Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of CEMEX in a lawsuit concerning a plant construction with multi-million dollar cost overrun and construction delays, filed in Florida state court (Business Court Division).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of patent holder in a paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePennfield Oil Company d/b/a Pennfield Animal Health v. Alpharma Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Alpharma in a false advertising action arising from Alpharma advertisements that report the results of pharmaceutical research studies, filed in the District of Nebraska.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Alpharma in a lawsuit regarding the breach of a trademark license agreement and the infringement of Alpharma\u0026rsquo;s trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4206}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:50:54.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:50:54.000Z","searchable_text":"Dammann{{ FIELD }}Amina Dammann’s experience includes the following matters:{{ FIELD }}Represented German car manufacturer in environmental enforcement action before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board;{{ FIELD }}Represented German car manufacturer in litigation and governmental investigations regarding disputes over diesel emissions standards;{{ FIELD }}Represented New General Motors in litigation relating to ignition switch;{{ FIELD }}S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. v. ATI Technologies ULC, et al.  Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;{{ FIELD }}Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd., et al. Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;{{ FIELD }}Represented Chevron in litigation arising out of an explosion at a refinery;{{ FIELD }}Represented oil refinery owner in arbitration dispute arising out of a refinery construction project in Colombia;{{ FIELD }}Represented global wind farm developer in arbitration dispute arising out of a long-term turbine service agreement;{{ FIELD }}Keranos, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al. Representation of Microchip and other defendants in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, filed in the Eastern District of Texas;{{ FIELD }}Microchip Technology Inc. et al. v. United Module Corp. et al.(and related cases).  Representation of Microchip, Silicon Storage Technology and other declaratory judgment plaintiffs in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, pending in the Eastern District of Texas;{{ FIELD }}Occidental Chemical Corporation v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.: Representation of Occidental in litigation to assert rights of qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana;{{ FIELD }}JD Wind et al. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas et al.: Representation of Occidental in state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rate that must be paid to wind-generating facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and implementing regulations, filed in Texas state and federal courts.{{ FIELD }}Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Representation of 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 }}AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture et al. v. CEMEX Construction Material Florida, LLC: Representation of CEMEX in a lawsuit concerning a plant construction with multi-million dollar cost overrun and construction delays, filed in Florida state court (Business Court Division).{{ FIELD }}King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Representation of patent holder in a paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.{{ FIELD }}Pennfield Oil Company d/b/a Pennfield Animal Health v. Alpharma Inc.: Representation of Alpharma in a false advertising action arising from Alpharma advertisements that report the results of pharmaceutical research studies, filed in the District of Nebraska.{{ FIELD }}Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Representation of Alpharma in a lawsuit regarding the breach of a trademark license agreement and the infringement of Alpharma’s trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.{{ FIELD }}Amina Dammann specializes in environmental law and litigation.  She has extensive experience representing multinational corporations in the automotive, energy and pharma sectors.  Her practice includes defending clients in governmental investigations and enforcement actions, as well as in federal and state court litigation.\nAmina has many years of experience representing German and U.S. blue chip companies in both U.S. and German proceedings, as well as in transnational matters. A particular focus of her practice is on advising German companies facing litigation or governmental investigations in the United States. This includes representing German clients before U.S. agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB); it also involves coordinating parallel proceedings in the United States and Germany.  Amina  holds U.S. degrees from Harvard and Texas and has also obtained the two German state exams in law as well as a doctorate in law from Frankfurt University. \nPublications and Awards\n•   Vacating Arbitration Awards for Mistake of Fact, 27 Review of Litigation 441–512 (2008); honored with the Vinson \u0026amp; Elkins LLP Outstanding Note Award\n•  Die Beschwerdekammern der europäischen Agenturen [The Boards of Appeal of the European Agencies], Peter Lang, 2004; honored with the Baker \u0026amp; McKenzie Award for best dissertation in the area of business law Partner Frankfurt University  The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School Texas Federal Republic of Germany Amina Dammann’s experience includes the following matters: Represented German car manufacturer in environmental enforcement action before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board; Represented German car manufacturer in litigation and governmental investigations regarding disputes over diesel emissions standards; Represented New General Motors in litigation relating to ignition switch; S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. v. ATI Technologies ULC, et al.  Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd., et al. Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware; Represented Chevron in litigation arising out of an explosion at a refinery; Represented oil refinery owner in arbitration dispute arising out of a refinery construction project in Colombia; Represented global wind farm developer in arbitration dispute arising out of a long-term turbine service agreement; Keranos, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al. Representation of Microchip and other defendants in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, filed in the Eastern District of Texas; Microchip Technology Inc. et al. v. United Module Corp. et al.(and related cases).  Representation of Microchip, Silicon Storage Technology and other declaratory judgment plaintiffs in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, pending in the Eastern District of Texas; Occidental Chemical Corporation v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.: Representation of Occidental in litigation to assert rights of qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana; JD Wind et al. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas et al.: Representation of Occidental in state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rate that must be paid to wind-generating facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and implementing regulations, filed in Texas state and federal courts. Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Representation of 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. AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture et al. v. CEMEX Construction Material Florida, LLC: Representation of CEMEX in a lawsuit concerning a plant construction with multi-million dollar cost overrun and construction delays, filed in Florida state court (Business Court Division). King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Representation of patent holder in a paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware. Pennfield Oil Company d/b/a Pennfield Animal Health v. Alpharma Inc.: Representation of Alpharma in a false advertising action arising from Alpharma advertisements that report the results of pharmaceutical research studies, filed in the District of Nebraska. Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Representation of Alpharma in a lawsuit regarding the breach of a trademark license agreement and the infringement of Alpharma’s trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.","searchable_name":"Amina S. Dammann","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":196,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}