{"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":"17","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"M","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442384,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":966,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Markus focuses on U.S. federal and state regulation of drugs, biologics, biotechnology and related products. As a partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice and Deputy Practice Group Leader, Chris represents clients in a range of regulatory strategy and compliance evaluations, enforcement matters, and business transactions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris represents drug, biologic and other healthcare products companies and investors with compliance and enforcement under the Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and related state agencies such as Boards of Pharmacy. She also represents clients in business transactions, including strategic planning, due diligence and assessment, that involve product development and approval, safety, labeling, marketing and advertising, manufacturing and supply chain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on her experience, Chris was chosen to serve as the legal member of the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Pediatric Studies conducted under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act. IOM evaluated studies of drugs and biologics performed under two statutory regimes that provide incentives and, in some instances, mandate pediatric research through the drug approval process. The Committee assessed the findings and offered recommendations and briefings to FDA and the U.S. Congress.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris has been recognized by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Consulting Group\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as a 2017 \"Client Service All-Star\" and named repeatedly as a \"Life Sciences Star\" by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLMG Life Sciences.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp; She continues to be identified as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for FDA Law, and ranked as a life sciences practitioner by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"christina-markus","email":"cmarkus@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eAdvised numerous pharmaceutical and device manufacturers and distributors on compliance with\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003estate laws\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;governing operating entity licensure (including for \"virtual\" companies), extended producer responsibility (drug and sharps take back laws) and product distribution monitoring and reporting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on range of clinical trial issues, including design, compliance and transparency disclosures.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped responses to inspectional findings and import alerts, in close collaboration with technical experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) and state-specific requirements concerning the distribution and reporting of prescription, over-the-counter, and controlled drug samples.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edozens of pharmaceutical and biological product companies\u003c/strong\u003e, and investors, on life cycle issues, including patent and market exclusivity eligibility, regulatory strategies, and transactional diligence.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped and responded to citizen petition elucidating legal and scientific concerns about FDA's proposed\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebioequivalence standards, Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay provisions\u003c/strong\u003e, and other key regulatory topics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePerformed due diligence for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eregulatory issues\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and supported negotiation for corporate licensing, M\u0026amp;A, equity investing and financial institution lending.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEvaluated\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eimpacts of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on manufacturers, distributors, and third-party logistics providers of drugs, medical devices and combination products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproduct distributors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against proposed disciplinary action by the California Board of Pharmacy; Alabama Board of Pharmacy, and other jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on the status and use of controlled substances\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eand listed chemicals\u003c/strong\u003e, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Administrative hearings concerning applicants for registration to import narcotic raw materials,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Representation of a reverse distributor before DEA and state agencies to untangle registration issues arising in a multi-faceted corporate transaction, without penalty to the acquiring company,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Applied listed chemical requirements impacting an industrial chemical importer's supply chain, and\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Facilitated DEA scheduling of a new chemical entity completing the FDA approval process.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1193,"guid":"1193.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Markus","nick_name":"Chris","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Christina","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Client Service All-Star (unprompted survey of large company corporate counsel)","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2017"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal: Life Sciences","detail":"2017-2024"},{"title":"Leading Life Sciences Lawyer","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012-2025"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America - FDA Law","detail":"Best Lawyers/US News \u0026 World Report, 2015-2026"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Markus focuses on U.S. federal and state regulation of drugs, biologics, biotechnology and related products. As a partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice and Deputy Practice Group Leader, Chris represents clients in a range of regulatory strategy and compliance evaluations, enforcement matters, and business transactions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris represents drug, biologic and other healthcare products companies and investors with compliance and enforcement under the Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and related state agencies such as Boards of Pharmacy. She also represents clients in business transactions, including strategic planning, due diligence and assessment, that involve product development and approval, safety, labeling, marketing and advertising, manufacturing and supply chain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on her experience, Chris was chosen to serve as the legal member of the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Pediatric Studies conducted under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act. IOM evaluated studies of drugs and biologics performed under two statutory regimes that provide incentives and, in some instances, mandate pediatric research through the drug approval process. The Committee assessed the findings and offered recommendations and briefings to FDA and the U.S. Congress.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris has been recognized by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Consulting Group\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as a 2017 \"Client Service All-Star\" and named repeatedly as a \"Life Sciences Star\" by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLMG Life Sciences.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp; She continues to be identified as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for FDA Law, and ranked as a life sciences practitioner by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAdvised numerous pharmaceutical and device manufacturers and distributors on compliance with\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003estate laws\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;governing operating entity licensure (including for \"virtual\" companies), extended producer responsibility (drug and sharps take back laws) and product distribution monitoring and reporting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on range of clinical trial issues, including design, compliance and transparency disclosures.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped responses to inspectional findings and import alerts, in close collaboration with technical experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) and state-specific requirements concerning the distribution and reporting of prescription, over-the-counter, and controlled drug samples.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edozens of pharmaceutical and biological product companies\u003c/strong\u003e, and investors, on life cycle issues, including patent and market exclusivity eligibility, regulatory strategies, and transactional diligence.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeveloped and responded to citizen petition elucidating legal and scientific concerns about FDA's proposed\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebioequivalence standards, Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay provisions\u003c/strong\u003e, and other key regulatory topics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePerformed due diligence for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eregulatory issues\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and supported negotiation for corporate licensing, M\u0026amp;A, equity investing and financial institution lending.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEvaluated\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eimpacts of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on manufacturers, distributors, and third-party logistics providers of drugs, medical devices and combination products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproduct distributors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against proposed disciplinary action by the California Board of Pharmacy; Alabama Board of Pharmacy, and other jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised on the status and use of controlled substances\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eand listed chemicals\u003c/strong\u003e, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Administrative hearings concerning applicants for registration to import narcotic raw materials,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Representation of a reverse distributor before DEA and state agencies to untangle registration issues arising in a multi-faceted corporate transaction, without penalty to the acquiring company,\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Applied listed chemical requirements impacting an industrial chemical importer's supply chain, and\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Facilitated DEA scheduling of a new chemical entity completing the FDA approval process.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Client Service All-Star (unprompted survey of large company corporate counsel)","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2017"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal: Life Sciences","detail":"2017-2024"},{"title":"Leading Life Sciences Lawyer","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012-2025"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America - FDA Law","detail":"Best Lawyers/US News \u0026 World Report, 2015-2026"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1035}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Markus{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Client Service All-Star (unprompted survey of large company corporate counsel)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI Consulting, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal: Life Sciences\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Life Sciences Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences, 2012-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America - FDA Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers/US News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}Advised numerous pharmaceutical and device manufacturers and distributors on compliance with state laws governing operating entity licensure (including for \"virtual\" companies), extended producer responsibility (drug and sharps take back laws) and product distribution monitoring and reporting.{{ FIELD }}Advised on range of clinical trial issues, including design, compliance and transparency disclosures.{{ FIELD }}Developed responses to inspectional findings and import alerts, in close collaboration with technical experts.{{ FIELD }}Advised on the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) and state-specific requirements concerning the distribution and reporting of prescription, over-the-counter, and controlled drug samples.{{ FIELD }}Advised dozens of pharmaceutical and biological product companies, and investors, on life cycle issues, including patent and market exclusivity eligibility, regulatory strategies, and transactional diligence.{{ FIELD }}Developed and responded to citizen petition elucidating legal and scientific concerns about FDA's proposed bioequivalence standards, Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay provisions, and other key regulatory topics.{{ FIELD }}Performed due diligence for regulatory issues and supported negotiation for corporate licensing, M\u0026amp;A, equity investing and financial institution lending.{{ FIELD }}Evaluated impacts of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) on manufacturers, distributors, and third-party logistics providers of drugs, medical devices and combination products.{{ FIELD }}Defended product distributors against proposed disciplinary action by the California Board of Pharmacy; Alabama Board of Pharmacy, and other jurisdictions.{{ FIELD }}Advised on the status and use of controlled substances and listed chemicals, including:\n- Administrative hearings concerning applicants for registration to import narcotic raw materials,\n- Representation of a reverse distributor before DEA and state agencies to untangle registration issues arising in a multi-faceted corporate transaction, without penalty to the acquiring company,\n- Applied listed chemical requirements impacting an industrial chemical importer's supply chain, and\n- Facilitated DEA scheduling of a new chemical entity completing the FDA approval process.{{ FIELD }}Chris Markus focuses on U.S. federal and state regulation of drugs, biologics, biotechnology and related products. As a partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice and Deputy Practice Group Leader, Chris represents clients in a range of regulatory strategy and compliance evaluations, enforcement matters, and business transactions.\nChris represents drug, biologic and other healthcare products companies and investors with compliance and enforcement under the Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and related state agencies such as Boards of Pharmacy. She also represents clients in business transactions, including strategic planning, due diligence and assessment, that involve product development and approval, safety, labeling, marketing and advertising, manufacturing and supply chain.\nBased on her experience, Chris was chosen to serve as the legal member of the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Pediatric Studies conducted under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act. IOM evaluated studies of drugs and biologics performed under two statutory regimes that provide incentives and, in some instances, mandate pediatric research through the drug approval process. The Committee assessed the findings and offered recommendations and briefings to FDA and the U.S. Congress. \nChris has been recognized by the BTI Consulting Group as a 2017 \"Client Service All-Star\" and named repeatedly as a \"Life Sciences Star\" by LMG Life Sciences.  She continues to be identified as one of The Best Lawyers in America for FDA Law, and ranked as a life sciences practitioner by The Legal 500. Partner Client Service All-Star (unprompted survey of large company corporate counsel) BTI Consulting, 2017 Who's Who Legal: Life Sciences 2017-2024 Leading Life Sciences Lawyer LMG Life Sciences, 2012-2025 Best Lawyers in America - FDA Law Best Lawyers/US News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015-2026 College of William and Mary William \u0026amp; Mary Law School University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law District of Columbia Virginia The District of Columbia Bar Virginia State Bar Advised numerous pharmaceutical and device manufacturers and distributors on compliance with state laws governing operating entity licensure (including for \"virtual\" companies), extended producer responsibility (drug and sharps take back laws) and product distribution monitoring and reporting. Advised on range of clinical trial issues, including design, compliance and transparency disclosures. Developed responses to inspectional findings and import alerts, in close collaboration with technical experts. Advised on the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (PDMA) and state-specific requirements concerning the distribution and reporting of prescription, over-the-counter, and controlled drug samples. Advised dozens of pharmaceutical and biological product companies, and investors, on life cycle issues, including patent and market exclusivity eligibility, regulatory strategies, and transactional diligence. Developed and responded to citizen petition elucidating legal and scientific concerns about FDA's proposed bioequivalence standards, Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay provisions, and other key regulatory topics. Performed due diligence for regulatory issues and supported negotiation for corporate licensing, M\u0026amp;A, equity investing and financial institution lending. Evaluated impacts of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) on manufacturers, distributors, and third-party logistics providers of drugs, medical devices and combination products. Defended product distributors against proposed disciplinary action by the California Board of Pharmacy; Alabama Board of Pharmacy, and other jurisdictions. Advised on the status and use of controlled substances and listed chemicals, including:\n- Administrative hearings concerning applicants for registration to import narcotic raw materials,\n- Representation of a reverse distributor before DEA and state agencies to untangle registration issues arising in a multi-faceted corporate transaction, without penalty to the acquiring company,\n- Applied listed chemical requirements impacting an industrial chemical importer's supply chain, and\n- Facilitated DEA scheduling of a new chemical entity completing the FDA approval process.","searchable_name":"Christina M. Markus (Chris)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445596,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7305,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Melsheimer is the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Head of Trial and serves as the Managing Partner of the Dallas office. Described as \u0026ldquo;one of the most sought after trial lawyers in the country\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAmerican Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003epublishers, \u0026ldquo;a celebrated storyteller\u0026rdquo; by the magazine\u0026rsquo;s founder, and a \u0026ldquo;game-changing ringer\u0026rdquo; by another national legal publication, Tom is the all-too-rare true trial lawyer\u0026mdash;one who can try any case, whatever the claims or subject matter. He has remarkably broad and comprehensive jury trial experience. He has tried civil cases involving breach of contract, business torts and fraud, trade secret, patent, antitrust, securities, product liability/mass tort, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;claims. He also has tried criminal cases involving antitrust, healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, and kidnapping. Tom is the author of a widely acclaimed book on trying cases before a jury,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOn the Jury Trial\u003c/em\u003e, now in its second edition. Legendary trial lawyer and law professor Mike Tigar has called it a \u0026ldquo;book every lawyer should read.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and he is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He has been recognized for his litigation prowess by numerous outside ranking organizations and publications, including \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Chambers Global, Benchmark Litigation US, The Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;, Best Lawyers Texas, Lawdragon, Super Lawyers, \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e. In August 2024, Tom was named as a finalist for \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s 2024 National Winning Litigators award. In 2025, he made the inaugural list of \u003cem\u003eBloomberg\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Unrivaled\u0026rdquo; litigators series. Tom is one of a handful of trial lawyers in the country and the only one in Texas who has been recognized as \u0026ldquo;Band 1\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e in five different categories including Commercial Litigation, White Collar, and Intellectual Property.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom tries lawsuits in state and federal courts before both judges and juries and involving civil claims and criminal charges. On the civil side, he has tried to verdict cases involving commercial, business tort, fraud, product liability, mass tort, securities, antitrust, patent infringement, trade secrets, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e/FCA claims. On the criminal side, he has tried to verdict cases involving healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, copyright infringement, aggravated sexual assault, and kidnapping. Tom\u0026rsquo;s jury trials include successfully representing plaintiffs and defendants all over the U.S. and throughout Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining private practice, Tom served as a federal prosecutor in Dallas. He successfully prosecuted the largest bank fraud case ever undertaken in Texas, and he obtained one of the largest RICO verdicts in Texas history. The Department of Justice honored Tom as one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s top prosecutors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMajor Cases: \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Tom was lead counsel in the public corruption retrial of Dallas developer \u003cstrong\u003eRuel Hamilton\u003c/strong\u003e, who had previously been convicted and sentenced to seven years incarceration. In the retrial, following reversal of his earlier conviction, Tom obtained a complete acquittal on all charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2023, Tom was lead trial counsel in defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAlphatec\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a bitter dispute with medical device rival Nuvasive, involving allegations that Alphatec tortiously interfered with NuVasive\u0026rsquo;s distributor agreements and that it also interfered with its agreements with sales representatives in certain states. In a nearly 3-month trial in California Superior Court in San Diego, he helped achieve a resounding victory by successfully defeating NuVasive Inc.\u0026rsquo;s $49 million actual damages claim (and multiples of that in alleged punitive damages).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn August 2023, Tom led a team that prevailed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(USWS) in patent infringement litigation brought by competitor Halliburton relating to hydraulic fracturing software and methods and physical systems related to the operation of USWS\u0026rsquo;s fracturing sites. Tom won a complete defense jury verdict finding of no infringement by the client and that two asserted patents were invalid. The verdict cleared USWS of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s infringement allegations and damages demand of over $76 million.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2022, Tom represented \u003cstrong\u003eKent Thiry,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eformer CEO of Fortune 500 company DaVita, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, in a first-of-its-kind criminal antitrust case alleging horizontal market allocation in the labor market. After an eight-day trial in federal court in Colorado, the jury acquitted Thiry on all counts. Many opined the win would influence whether the Department of Justice would continue to pursue enforcement allegations in antitrust matters involving labor-market collusion and, as it turns out, the DOJ has largely abandoned this theory of prosecution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter a seven-week jury trial in 2019, for his client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDr. Nick Nicholson\u003c/strong\u003e, Tom successfully obtained the only acquittal in a 21-defendant federal healthcare fraud case involving allegations of $40 million in bribes and kickbacks. The so-called\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eForest Park\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;case was the largest healthcare fraud investigation ever undertaken by federal authorities in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebillionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC. The jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court. Tom has represented Mr. Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks, and other Cuban business interests since 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;and co-counsel from the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office helped the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eState of Texas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;secure\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ethe largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history\u003c/em\u003e. The $158 million settlement reached during trial followed claims of illegal marketing practices associated with the prescription drug Risperdal\u0026reg;.\u0026nbsp;His work in the case was featured in a 15-part series authored by acclaimed legal journalist Steven Brill and published by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHuffington Post\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 2015.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026rsquo;s $178 million jury trial win on behalf of the plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eMartin\u003c/strong\u003e in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, et al.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;included nearly $150 million in punitive damages. The jury award in the breach of fiduciary duty case was named one of the \u0026ldquo;Top Verdicts of 2009\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, in addition to being recognized as one of the year\u0026rsquo;s three largest verdicts in Texas and the year\u0026rsquo;s largest verdict in Dallas County. On four other occasions, Tom\u0026rsquo;s cases have been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNLJ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;among the nation\u0026rsquo;s top cases, including the defense of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;action involving a government contract where his clients defeated a claim of fraudulent overpayment and won their affirmative claim that they had been underpaid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a mass tort case, Tom successfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by over 12,000 plaintiffs in state and federal multi-district litigation involving bet-the-company allegations that the client\u0026rsquo;s medical device was responsible for thousands of deaths and serious injuries. The first bellwether case in state court in Massachusetts\u0026nbsp;ended in a complete defense verdict after a high-profile jury trial, leading to the bulk of the cases settling thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"tom-melsheimer","email":"tmelsheimer@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which\u0026nbsp;claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability\u0026nbsp;Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Noryian\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.T.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e et al. v. Morath, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks.\u0026nbsp;After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u0026rsquo;s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBadger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJohn Doe v. Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees to company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSEC v. Mark Cuban\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series \u0026ldquo;Nash Bridges,\u0026rdquo; in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor, and the case settled before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents\u0026rsquo; validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo\u0026rsquo;s position on willfulness in patent litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScript Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int\u0026rsquo;l, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its \u0026ldquo;Fresenius 2008K\u0026rdquo; hemodialysis machine).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008\u0026ndash;2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDeep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchroeder v. Wildenthal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI\u0026rsquo;s valuable trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel v. Samsung,\u003c/em\u003eDC-96-08262 (193rd\u0026nbsp;Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million.\u0026nbsp;The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAccolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCarreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Gary Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRadman v. Weil Gotshal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUniversal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTaco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Lipscomb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecase alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA.\u0026nbsp;Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Faulkner, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Melsheimer","nick_name":"Thomas","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Judge Homer Thornberry, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"1986 - 1986"}],"first_name":"Thomas","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1986-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"“Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026"},{"title":"IAM Global Leader","detail":"IAM, 2021-2026"},{"title":"Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Leading Trial Lawyer”","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024"},{"title":"“100 Managing Partners you Need to Know” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Environmental Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global Litigators” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Super Lawyers, Texas","detail":"2003-2025"},{"title":"“Trials MVP”","detail":"Law360, 2024-2025"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Hall of Fame” ","detail":"D Magazine, 2022"},{"title":"“Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents","detail":"Who’s Who Legal, 2022"},{"title":"Patents Leader","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024"},{"title":"Lifetime Achievement Award","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Texas Trailblazers","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2019"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/tommelsheimer/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Melsheimer is the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Head of Trial and serves as the Managing Partner of the Dallas office. Described as \u0026ldquo;one of the most sought after trial lawyers in the country\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAmerican Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003epublishers, \u0026ldquo;a celebrated storyteller\u0026rdquo; by the magazine\u0026rsquo;s founder, and a \u0026ldquo;game-changing ringer\u0026rdquo; by another national legal publication, Tom is the all-too-rare true trial lawyer\u0026mdash;one who can try any case, whatever the claims or subject matter. He has remarkably broad and comprehensive jury trial experience. He has tried civil cases involving breach of contract, business torts and fraud, trade secret, patent, antitrust, securities, product liability/mass tort, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;claims. He also has tried criminal cases involving antitrust, healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, and kidnapping. Tom is the author of a widely acclaimed book on trying cases before a jury,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOn the Jury Trial\u003c/em\u003e, now in its second edition. Legendary trial lawyer and law professor Mike Tigar has called it a \u0026ldquo;book every lawyer should read.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and he is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He has been recognized for his litigation prowess by numerous outside ranking organizations and publications, including \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Chambers Global, Benchmark Litigation US, The Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;, Best Lawyers Texas, Lawdragon, Super Lawyers, \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e. In August 2024, Tom was named as a finalist for \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s 2024 National Winning Litigators award. In 2025, he made the inaugural list of \u003cem\u003eBloomberg\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Unrivaled\u0026rdquo; litigators series. Tom is one of a handful of trial lawyers in the country and the only one in Texas who has been recognized as \u0026ldquo;Band 1\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e in five different categories including Commercial Litigation, White Collar, and Intellectual Property.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom tries lawsuits in state and federal courts before both judges and juries and involving civil claims and criminal charges. On the civil side, he has tried to verdict cases involving commercial, business tort, fraud, product liability, mass tort, securities, antitrust, patent infringement, trade secrets, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e/FCA claims. On the criminal side, he has tried to verdict cases involving healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, copyright infringement, aggravated sexual assault, and kidnapping. Tom\u0026rsquo;s jury trials include successfully representing plaintiffs and defendants all over the U.S. and throughout Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining private practice, Tom served as a federal prosecutor in Dallas. He successfully prosecuted the largest bank fraud case ever undertaken in Texas, and he obtained one of the largest RICO verdicts in Texas history. The Department of Justice honored Tom as one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s top prosecutors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMajor Cases: \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Tom was lead counsel in the public corruption retrial of Dallas developer \u003cstrong\u003eRuel Hamilton\u003c/strong\u003e, who had previously been convicted and sentenced to seven years incarceration. In the retrial, following reversal of his earlier conviction, Tom obtained a complete acquittal on all charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2023, Tom was lead trial counsel in defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAlphatec\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a bitter dispute with medical device rival Nuvasive, involving allegations that Alphatec tortiously interfered with NuVasive\u0026rsquo;s distributor agreements and that it also interfered with its agreements with sales representatives in certain states. In a nearly 3-month trial in California Superior Court in San Diego, he helped achieve a resounding victory by successfully defeating NuVasive Inc.\u0026rsquo;s $49 million actual damages claim (and multiples of that in alleged punitive damages).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn August 2023, Tom led a team that prevailed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(USWS) in patent infringement litigation brought by competitor Halliburton relating to hydraulic fracturing software and methods and physical systems related to the operation of USWS\u0026rsquo;s fracturing sites. Tom won a complete defense jury verdict finding of no infringement by the client and that two asserted patents were invalid. The verdict cleared USWS of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s infringement allegations and damages demand of over $76 million.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2022, Tom represented \u003cstrong\u003eKent Thiry,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eformer CEO of Fortune 500 company DaVita, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, in a first-of-its-kind criminal antitrust case alleging horizontal market allocation in the labor market. After an eight-day trial in federal court in Colorado, the jury acquitted Thiry on all counts. Many opined the win would influence whether the Department of Justice would continue to pursue enforcement allegations in antitrust matters involving labor-market collusion and, as it turns out, the DOJ has largely abandoned this theory of prosecution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter a seven-week jury trial in 2019, for his client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDr. Nick Nicholson\u003c/strong\u003e, Tom successfully obtained the only acquittal in a 21-defendant federal healthcare fraud case involving allegations of $40 million in bribes and kickbacks. The so-called\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eForest Park\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;case was the largest healthcare fraud investigation ever undertaken by federal authorities in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebillionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC. The jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court. Tom has represented Mr. Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks, and other Cuban business interests since 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;and co-counsel from the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office helped the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eState of Texas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;secure\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ethe largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history\u003c/em\u003e. The $158 million settlement reached during trial followed claims of illegal marketing practices associated with the prescription drug Risperdal\u0026reg;.\u0026nbsp;His work in the case was featured in a 15-part series authored by acclaimed legal journalist Steven Brill and published by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHuffington Post\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 2015.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026rsquo;s $178 million jury trial win on behalf of the plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eMartin\u003c/strong\u003e in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, et al.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;included nearly $150 million in punitive damages. The jury award in the breach of fiduciary duty case was named one of the \u0026ldquo;Top Verdicts of 2009\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, in addition to being recognized as one of the year\u0026rsquo;s three largest verdicts in Texas and the year\u0026rsquo;s largest verdict in Dallas County. On four other occasions, Tom\u0026rsquo;s cases have been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNLJ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;among the nation\u0026rsquo;s top cases, including the defense of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;action involving a government contract where his clients defeated a claim of fraudulent overpayment and won their affirmative claim that they had been underpaid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a mass tort case, Tom successfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by over 12,000 plaintiffs in state and federal multi-district litigation involving bet-the-company allegations that the client\u0026rsquo;s medical device was responsible for thousands of deaths and serious injuries. The first bellwether case in state court in Massachusetts\u0026nbsp;ended in a complete defense verdict after a high-profile jury trial, leading to the bulk of the cases settling thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which\u0026nbsp;claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability\u0026nbsp;Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Noryian\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.T.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e et al. v. Morath, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks.\u0026nbsp;After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u0026rsquo;s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBadger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJohn Doe v. Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees to company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSEC v. Mark Cuban\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series \u0026ldquo;Nash Bridges,\u0026rdquo; in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor, and the case settled before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents\u0026rsquo; validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo\u0026rsquo;s position on willfulness in patent litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScript Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int\u0026rsquo;l, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its \u0026ldquo;Fresenius 2008K\u0026rdquo; hemodialysis machine).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008\u0026ndash;2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDeep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchroeder v. Wildenthal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI\u0026rsquo;s valuable trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel v. Samsung,\u003c/em\u003eDC-96-08262 (193rd\u0026nbsp;Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million.\u0026nbsp;The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAccolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCarreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Gary Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRadman v. Weil Gotshal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUniversal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTaco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Lipscomb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecase alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA.\u0026nbsp;Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Faulkner, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"“Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026"},{"title":"IAM Global Leader","detail":"IAM, 2021-2026"},{"title":"Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Leading Trial Lawyer”","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024"},{"title":"“100 Managing Partners you Need to Know” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Environmental Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global Litigators” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Super Lawyers, Texas","detail":"2003-2025"},{"title":"“Trials MVP”","detail":"Law360, 2024-2025"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Hall of Fame” ","detail":"D Magazine, 2022"},{"title":"“Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents","detail":"Who’s Who Legal, 2022"},{"title":"Patents Leader","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024"},{"title":"Lifetime Achievement Award","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Texas Trailblazers","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2019"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13340}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-04T22:05:21.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-04T22:05:21.000Z","searchable_text":"Melsheimer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"IAM Global Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM, 2021-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2007-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2019-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Leading Trial Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“100 Managing Partners you Need to Know” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2022-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2023-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Environmental Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Global Litigators” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2003-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Trials MVP”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2024-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyers Hall of Fame” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Patents Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lifetime Achievement Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Trailblazers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS’ fracturing sites.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al. (D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts.{{ FIELD }}In Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability Litigation (MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Noryian (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement.{{ FIELD }}E.T., et al. v. Morath, et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law.{{ FIELD }}Flypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google’s infringement.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks. After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted.{{ FIELD }}America’s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al. (Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase.{{ FIELD }}Badger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP (Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial.{{ FIELD }}John Doe v. Company, Inc. (Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney’s fees to company.{{ FIELD }}Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud.{{ FIELD }}SEC v. Mark Cuban (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing.{{ FIELD }}State of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two.{{ FIELD }}Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.{{ FIELD }}Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million.{{ FIELD }}Rysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al. (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series “Nash Bridges,” in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client’s favor, and the case settled before trial.{{ FIELD }}Martin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages.{{ FIELD }}Halo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al. (D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents’ validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo’s position on willfulness in patent litigation.{{ FIELD }}YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Amerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim.{{ FIELD }}Script Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis (S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation.{{ FIELD }}Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its “Fresenius 2008K” hemodialysis machine).{{ FIELD }}Oasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}United States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008–2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Judge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston (Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election.{{ FIELD }}Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd. (Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant’s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal.{{ FIELD }}Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict.{{ FIELD }}Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought.{{ FIELD }}Hillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Schroeder v. Wildenthal, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}In re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks (S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Alcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history.{{ FIELD }}Texas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI’s valuable trade secrets.{{ FIELD }}EPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc. (D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets.{{ FIELD }}Alcatel v. Samsung,DC-96-08262 (193rd Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million. The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms.{{ FIELD }}Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Carreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories.{{ FIELD }}Texas Instruments v. Gary Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court.{{ FIELD }}Radman v. Weil Gotshal, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}Universal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}Taco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Lipscomb (N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government.{{ FIELD }}BancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract.{{ FIELD }}DSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}U.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in qui tam case alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA. Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Faulkner, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.{{ FIELD }}Tom Melsheimer is the firm’s Global Head of Trial and serves as the Managing Partner of the Dallas office. Described as “one of the most sought after trial lawyers in the country” by American Lawyer’s publishers, “a celebrated storyteller” by the magazine’s founder, and a “game-changing ringer” by another national legal publication, Tom is the all-too-rare true trial lawyer—one who can try any case, whatever the claims or subject matter. He has remarkably broad and comprehensive jury trial experience. He has tried civil cases involving breach of contract, business torts and fraud, trade secret, patent, antitrust, securities, product liability/mass tort, and qui tam claims. He also has tried criminal cases involving antitrust, healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, and kidnapping. Tom is the author of a widely acclaimed book on trying cases before a jury, On the Jury Trial, now in its second edition. Legendary trial lawyer and law professor Mike Tigar has called it a “book every lawyer should read.” \nTom is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and he is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He has been recognized for his litigation prowess by numerous outside ranking organizations and publications, including Chambers USA, Chambers Global, Benchmark Litigation US, The Best Lawyers in America®, Best Lawyers Texas, Lawdragon, Super Lawyers, and The Legal 500 US. In August 2024, Tom was named as a finalist for The National Law Journal’s 2024 National Winning Litigators award. In 2025, he made the inaugural list of Bloomberg’s “Unrivaled” litigators series. Tom is one of a handful of trial lawyers in the country and the only one in Texas who has been recognized as “Band 1” by Chambers in five different categories including Commercial Litigation, White Collar, and Intellectual Property.\nTom tries lawsuits in state and federal courts before both judges and juries and involving civil claims and criminal charges. On the civil side, he has tried to verdict cases involving commercial, business tort, fraud, product liability, mass tort, securities, antitrust, patent infringement, trade secrets, and qui tam/FCA claims. On the criminal side, he has tried to verdict cases involving healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, copyright infringement, aggravated sexual assault, and kidnapping. Tom’s jury trials include successfully representing plaintiffs and defendants all over the U.S. and throughout Texas.\nPrior to joining private practice, Tom served as a federal prosecutor in Dallas. He successfully prosecuted the largest bank fraud case ever undertaken in Texas, and he obtained one of the largest RICO verdicts in Texas history. The Department of Justice honored Tom as one of the nation’s top prosecutors.\nMajor Cases: \nIn 2025, Tom was lead counsel in the public corruption retrial of Dallas developer Ruel Hamilton, who had previously been convicted and sentenced to seven years incarceration. In the retrial, following reversal of his earlier conviction, Tom obtained a complete acquittal on all charges.\nIn 2023, Tom was lead trial counsel in defense of Alphatec in a bitter dispute with medical device rival Nuvasive, involving allegations that Alphatec tortiously interfered with NuVasive’s distributor agreements and that it also interfered with its agreements with sales representatives in certain states. In a nearly 3-month trial in California Superior Court in San Diego, he helped achieve a resounding victory by successfully defeating NuVasive Inc.’s $49 million actual damages claim (and multiples of that in alleged punitive damages).\nIn August 2023, Tom led a team that prevailed for U.S. Well Services (USWS) in patent infringement litigation brought by competitor Halliburton relating to hydraulic fracturing software and methods and physical systems related to the operation of USWS’s fracturing sites. Tom won a complete defense jury verdict finding of no infringement by the client and that two asserted patents were invalid. The verdict cleared USWS of Halliburton’s infringement allegations and damages demand of over $76 million.\nIn 2022, Tom represented Kent Thiry, former CEO of Fortune 500 company DaVita, Inc., in a first-of-its-kind criminal antitrust case alleging horizontal market allocation in the labor market. After an eight-day trial in federal court in Colorado, the jury acquitted Thiry on all counts. Many opined the win would influence whether the Department of Justice would continue to pursue enforcement allegations in antitrust matters involving labor-market collusion and, as it turns out, the DOJ has largely abandoned this theory of prosecution.\nAfter a seven-week jury trial in 2019, for his client Dr. Nick Nicholson, Tom successfully obtained the only acquittal in a 21-defendant federal healthcare fraud case involving allegations of $40 million in bribes and kickbacks. The so-called Forest Park case was the largest healthcare fraud investigation ever undertaken by federal authorities in Texas.\nTom was lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC. The jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court. Tom has represented Mr. Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks, and other Cuban business interests since 2000.\nTom and co-counsel from the Texas Attorney General’s office helped the State of Texas secure the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history. The $158 million settlement reached during trial followed claims of illegal marketing practices associated with the prescription drug Risperdal®. His work in the case was featured in a 15-part series authored by acclaimed legal journalist Steven Brill and published by the Huffington Post in 2015.\nTom’s $178 million jury trial win on behalf of the plaintiff Martin in Martin v. NL Industries, et al., included nearly $150 million in punitive damages. The jury award in the breach of fiduciary duty case was named one of the “Top Verdicts of 2009” by The National Law Journal, in addition to being recognized as one of the year’s three largest verdicts in Texas and the year’s largest verdict in Dallas County. On four other occasions, Tom’s cases have been recognized by NLJ among the nation’s top cases, including the defense of a qui tam action involving a government contract where his clients defeated a claim of fraudulent overpayment and won their affirmative claim that they had been underpaid.\nIn a mass tort case, Tom successfully defended a healthcare company sued by over 12,000 plaintiffs in state and federal multi-district litigation involving bet-the-company allegations that the client’s medical device was responsible for thousands of deaths and serious injuries. The first bellwether case in state court in Massachusetts ended in a complete defense verdict after a high-profile jury trial, leading to the bulk of the cases settling thereafter. Partner “Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”  Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026 “Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas” D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026 IAM Global Leader IAM, 2021-2026 Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025 Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide Chambers USA, 2018-2025 Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas Chambers USA, 2018-2025 Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2007-2025 Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds Chambers USA, 2020-2025 Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations Chambers USA, 2018-2025 Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide Chambers USA, 2020-2025 Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA Chambers Global, 2019-2025 Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA Chambers Global, 2018-2025 “Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025 “Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025 “Leading Trial Lawyer” The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024 Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame” Lawdragon, 2024 “100 Managing Partners you Need to Know”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law” Lawdragon, 2022-2025 “500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2023-2025 “500 Leading Environmental Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Energy Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management” Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Global Litigators”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2025 Super Lawyers, Texas 2003-2025 “Trials MVP” Law360, 2024-2025 “Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas” D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023 “Best Lawyers Hall of Fame”  D Magazine, 2022 “Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents Who’s Who Legal, 2022 Patents Leader WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024 Lifetime Achievement Award Texas Lawyer, 2021 Texas Trailblazers Texas Lawyer, 2019 University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law School The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Texas Law Clerk, Honorable Judge Homer Thornberry, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS’ fracturing sites. U.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al. (D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts. In Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability Litigation (MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter. U.S. v. Noryian (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement. E.T., et al. v. Morath, et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law. Flypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google’s infringement. U.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks. After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted. America’s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al. (Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase. Badger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP (Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial. John Doe v. Company, Inc. (Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney’s fees to company. Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud. SEC v. Mark Cuban (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing. State of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two. Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer. Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million. Rysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al. (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series “Nash Bridges,” in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client’s favor, and the case settled before trial. Martin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages. Halo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al. (D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents’ validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo’s position on willfulness in patent litigation. YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms. Amerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim. Script Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial. U.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis (S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its “Fresenius 2008K” hemodialysis machine). Oasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial. United States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008–2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial. Judge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston (Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd. (Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant’s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal. Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict. Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought. Hillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims. Schroeder v. Wildenthal, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims. In re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks (S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims. Alcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history. Texas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI’s valuable trade secrets. EPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc. (D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets. Alcatel v. Samsung,DC-96-08262 (193rd Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million. The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms. Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial. Carreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories. Texas Instruments v. Gary Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court. Radman v. Weil Gotshal, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial. Universal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial. Taco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims. U.S. v. Lipscomb (N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government. BancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract. DSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims. U.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in qui tam case alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA. Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment. U.S. v. Faulkner, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.","searchable_name":"Thomas M. Melsheimer","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426536,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4090,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGary Messplay specializes in advising life science companies on regulatory, compliance and transactional matters. A partner in our nationally recognized FDA and Life Sciences practice, Gary has almost 30 years of experience representing large multinational pharmaceutical and medical-device companies, as well as emerging companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGary advices clients in matters relating to the approval and commercialization of products that are regulated by the Food\u0026nbsp;and Drug Administration and other federal and state agencies.\u0026nbsp; Gary has substantial experience advising clients on all aspects of product approvals; product launches and commercialization including advertising and promotion; leading compliance-related investigations; developing and implementing regulatory and healthcare compliance programs; advising on patient support programs; and managing competitor disputes.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Gary regularly advises clients on matters relating to healthcare fraud and abuse, clinical trials, informed consent, drug safety issues, product liability, recalls, responding to 483s, warning letters and complete response letters, drug and device quality and manufacturing issues, and life cycle management.\u0026nbsp; Gary also represents companies in transactional matters including distribution and purchasing agreements, pharmacy agreements, clinical trial agreements, payor agreements, manufacturing and supply agreements, physician agreements, research agreements and co-promotion agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Gary was in-house counsel at Eli Lilly and Company, where he had global legal, regulatory and compliance responsibility for the company's top-selling pharmaceutical product at the time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent author and speaker on regulatory and compliance matters, Gary has been recognized for multiple years by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers Washington, DC\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"gary-messplay","email":"gmessplay@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 703 973 7500","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDeveloped customized, comprehensive healthcare compliance programs for numerous \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and medical device companies.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as outside general counsel to \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003especialty pharmaceutical companies and emerging drug and device companies.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed significant multi-year investigation for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e involving complex data integrity issues related to their bioanalytics laboratory.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised numerous \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e related to product commercialization, including advertising and promotion, First Amendment issues, interactions with payors and responding to FDA enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a significant number of compliance investigations on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies,\u003c/strong\u003e including large multinational investigations, involving off-label promotion, violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and FCPA, whistleblower reports, clinical trial noncompliance, cGMP violations, GLP violations and PDMA/drug sampling.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Board of Directors of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epublicly traded pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with an investigation involving the company's chief executive officer related to suspected violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e on all aspects of compliance with their corporate integrity agreements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised numerous \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical companies\u003c/strong\u003e on drug-approval strategies involving NDAs, product life cycle management, Hatch-Waxman and Orange Book issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea specialty pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in response to a petition filed by a public citizen seeking FDA withdrawal of popular pain medication.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with FDA, OCI, Department of Justice, SEC and congressional investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e related to clinical trial regulatory and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical companies\u003c/strong\u003e in developing and implementing specialty pharmacy programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with adverse FDA inspections, including responding to 483s and warning letters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in transactional matters involving clinical trial agreements, CRO agreements, distribution agreements, specialty pharmacy agreements and all types of services agreements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous regulatory and compliance due diligence teams in \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug, device, tobacco and food transactions.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with competitor disputes, including serving as trial counsel in major Lanham Act litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug, biotechnology, device, food and tobacco companies\u003c/strong\u003e on legislative matters including drafting and commenting on legislation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1193,"guid":"1193.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Messplay","nick_name":"Gary","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Gary","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2014, 2015 \u0026 2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/gary-messplay-45599b61/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGary Messplay specializes in advising life science companies on regulatory, compliance and transactional matters. A partner in our nationally recognized FDA and Life Sciences practice, Gary has almost 30 years of experience representing large multinational pharmaceutical and medical-device companies, as well as emerging companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGary advices clients in matters relating to the approval and commercialization of products that are regulated by the Food\u0026nbsp;and Drug Administration and other federal and state agencies.\u0026nbsp; Gary has substantial experience advising clients on all aspects of product approvals; product launches and commercialization including advertising and promotion; leading compliance-related investigations; developing and implementing regulatory and healthcare compliance programs; advising on patient support programs; and managing competitor disputes.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Gary regularly advises clients on matters relating to healthcare fraud and abuse, clinical trials, informed consent, drug safety issues, product liability, recalls, responding to 483s, warning letters and complete response letters, drug and device quality and manufacturing issues, and life cycle management.\u0026nbsp; Gary also represents companies in transactional matters including distribution and purchasing agreements, pharmacy agreements, clinical trial agreements, payor agreements, manufacturing and supply agreements, physician agreements, research agreements and co-promotion agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Gary was in-house counsel at Eli Lilly and Company, where he had global legal, regulatory and compliance responsibility for the company's top-selling pharmaceutical product at the time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent author and speaker on regulatory and compliance matters, Gary has been recognized for multiple years by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers Washington, DC\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDeveloped customized, comprehensive healthcare compliance programs for numerous \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and medical device companies.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as outside general counsel to \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003especialty pharmaceutical companies and emerging drug and device companies.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed significant multi-year investigation for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e involving complex data integrity issues related to their bioanalytics laboratory.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised numerous \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e related to product commercialization, including advertising and promotion, First Amendment issues, interactions with payors and responding to FDA enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a significant number of compliance investigations on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies,\u003c/strong\u003e including large multinational investigations, involving off-label promotion, violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and FCPA, whistleblower reports, clinical trial noncompliance, cGMP violations, GLP violations and PDMA/drug sampling.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Board of Directors of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epublicly traded pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with an investigation involving the company's chief executive officer related to suspected violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e on all aspects of compliance with their corporate integrity agreements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised numerous \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical companies\u003c/strong\u003e on drug-approval strategies involving NDAs, product life cycle management, Hatch-Waxman and Orange Book issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea specialty pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in response to a petition filed by a public citizen seeking FDA withdrawal of popular pain medication.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with FDA, OCI, Department of Justice, SEC and congressional investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e related to clinical trial regulatory and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical companies\u003c/strong\u003e in developing and implementing specialty pharmacy programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with adverse FDA inspections, including responding to 483s and warning letters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in transactional matters involving clinical trial agreements, CRO agreements, distribution agreements, specialty pharmacy agreements and all types of services agreements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous regulatory and compliance due diligence teams in \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug, device, tobacco and food transactions.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug and device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with competitor disputes, including serving as trial counsel in major Lanham Act litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003edrug, biotechnology, device, food and tobacco companies\u003c/strong\u003e on legislative matters including drafting and commenting on legislation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2014, 2015 \u0026 2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4357}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:54:29.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:54:29.000Z","searchable_text":"Messplay{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2014, 2015 \u0026amp; 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}Developed customized, comprehensive healthcare compliance programs for numerous drug and medical device companies.{{ FIELD }}Served as outside general counsel to specialty pharmaceutical companies and emerging drug and device companies.{{ FIELD }}Led significant multi-year investigation for a large pharmaceutical company involving complex data integrity issues related to their bioanalytics laboratory.{{ FIELD }}Advised numerous drug and device companies related to product commercialization, including advertising and promotion, First Amendment issues, interactions with payors and responding to FDA enforcement.{{ FIELD }}Conducted a significant number of compliance investigations on behalf of drug and device companies, including large multinational investigations, involving off-label promotion, violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and FCPA, whistleblower reports, clinical trial noncompliance, cGMP violations, GLP violations and PDMA/drug sampling.{{ FIELD }}Represented Board of Directors of publicly traded pharmaceutical company in connection with an investigation involving the company's chief executive officer related to suspected violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.{{ FIELD }}Advised drug and device companies on all aspects of compliance with their corporate integrity agreements.{{ FIELD }}Advised numerous pharmaceutical companies on drug-approval strategies involving NDAs, product life cycle management, Hatch-Waxman and Orange Book issues.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a specialty pharmaceutical company in response to a petition filed by a public citizen seeking FDA withdrawal of popular pain medication.{{ FIELD }}Represented drug and device companies in connection with FDA, OCI, Department of Justice, SEC and congressional investigations.{{ FIELD }}Advised drug and device companies related to clinical trial regulatory and compliance issues.{{ FIELD }}Assisted pharmaceutical companies in developing and implementing specialty pharmacy programs.{{ FIELD }}Represented drug and device companies in connection with adverse FDA inspections, including responding to 483s and warning letters.{{ FIELD }}Represented drug and device companies in transactional matters involving clinical trial agreements, CRO agreements, distribution agreements, specialty pharmacy agreements and all types of services agreements.{{ FIELD }}Led numerous regulatory and compliance due diligence teams in drug, device, tobacco and food transactions.{{ FIELD }}Represented drug and device companies in connection with competitor disputes, including serving as trial counsel in major Lanham Act litigation.{{ FIELD }}Advised drug, biotechnology, device, food and tobacco companies on legislative matters including drafting and commenting on legislation.{{ FIELD }}Gary Messplay specializes in advising life science companies on regulatory, compliance and transactional matters. A partner in our nationally recognized FDA and Life Sciences practice, Gary has almost 30 years of experience representing large multinational pharmaceutical and medical-device companies, as well as emerging companies.\nGary advices clients in matters relating to the approval and commercialization of products that are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and other federal and state agencies.  Gary has substantial experience advising clients on all aspects of product approvals; product launches and commercialization including advertising and promotion; leading compliance-related investigations; developing and implementing regulatory and healthcare compliance programs; advising on patient support programs; and managing competitor disputes.  In addition, Gary regularly advises clients on matters relating to healthcare fraud and abuse, clinical trials, informed consent, drug safety issues, product liability, recalls, responding to 483s, warning letters and complete response letters, drug and device quality and manufacturing issues, and life cycle management.  Gary also represents companies in transactional matters including distribution and purchasing agreements, pharmacy agreements, clinical trial agreements, payor agreements, manufacturing and supply agreements, physician agreements, research agreements and co-promotion agreements.\nPreviously, Gary was in-house counsel at Eli Lilly and Company, where he had global legal, regulatory and compliance responsibility for the company's top-selling pharmaceutical product at the time.\nA frequent author and speaker on regulatory and compliance matters, Gary has been recognized for multiple years by Super Lawyers Washington, DC. Partner  Super Lawyers, 2014, 2015 \u0026amp; 2016 District of Columbia Indiana Developed customized, comprehensive healthcare compliance programs for numerous drug and medical device companies. Served as outside general counsel to specialty pharmaceutical companies and emerging drug and device companies. Led significant multi-year investigation for a large pharmaceutical company involving complex data integrity issues related to their bioanalytics laboratory. Advised numerous drug and device companies related to product commercialization, including advertising and promotion, First Amendment issues, interactions with payors and responding to FDA enforcement. Conducted a significant number of compliance investigations on behalf of drug and device companies, including large multinational investigations, involving off-label promotion, violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and FCPA, whistleblower reports, clinical trial noncompliance, cGMP violations, GLP violations and PDMA/drug sampling. Represented Board of Directors of publicly traded pharmaceutical company in connection with an investigation involving the company's chief executive officer related to suspected violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Advised drug and device companies on all aspects of compliance with their corporate integrity agreements. Advised numerous pharmaceutical companies on drug-approval strategies involving NDAs, product life cycle management, Hatch-Waxman and Orange Book issues. Successfully represented a specialty pharmaceutical company in response to a petition filed by a public citizen seeking FDA withdrawal of popular pain medication. Represented drug and device companies in connection with FDA, OCI, Department of Justice, SEC and congressional investigations. Advised drug and device companies related to clinical trial regulatory and compliance issues. Assisted pharmaceutical companies in developing and implementing specialty pharmacy programs. Represented drug and device companies in connection with adverse FDA inspections, including responding to 483s and warning letters. Represented drug and device companies in transactional matters involving clinical trial agreements, CRO agreements, distribution agreements, specialty pharmacy agreements and all types of services agreements. Led numerous regulatory and compliance due diligence teams in drug, device, tobacco and food transactions. Represented drug and device companies in connection with competitor disputes, including serving as trial counsel in major Lanham Act litigation. Advised drug, biotechnology, device, food and tobacco companies on legislative matters including drafting and commenting on legislation.","searchable_name":"Gary C. Messplay","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":426357,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2817,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-mezzina","email":"pmezzina@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mezzina","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States","years_held":"2013-2014"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","years_held":"2009-2010"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court of the United States","years_held":"2018 - 2019"}],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"Alessio","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulmezzina/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":70}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:47.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:47.000Z","searchable_text":"Mezzina{{ FIELD }}As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.\nPaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\nPaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\nPaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Partner Harvard University Harvard Law School Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Law Clerk, Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States Law Clerk, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Law Clerk, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court of the United States","searchable_name":"Paul Alessio Mezzina","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442801,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5630,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve Michaux is a Belgian- and French-qualified lawyer in the FDA and Life Sciences practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecognized as one of the most highly regarded European Union (EU) life sciences regulatory specialists, Genevi\u0026egrave;ve assists companies on a wide variety of issues under EU and national (French and Belgian) food and drug laws and regulations, with an emphasis on regulatory matters involving drugs, biologics, medical devices, cosmetics and food. She also advises life sciences clients on significant policy developments in the EU and assists with broader European and global projects.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve\u0026rsquo;s work spans matters ranging from regulatory status of borderline products, authorization procedures, life cycle management, clinical trials and investigations, labeling, advertising and promotions for all categories of products, and issues raised by specific categories of medicinal products, such as pediatric, orphan or advance therapy medicinal products. She has advised on various issues arising out of the EU Pediatric Regulation, EU Orphan Regulation, SPC and SPC extension, and ATMPs at the European and national level. She also counsels startups on establishing themselves in the EU as well as complying with advertising and scientific information rules, regulatory and legal guidance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe assists life sciences companies in forming patient/compassionate use programs in Europe, negotiating and drafting consortia related agreements, reviewing clinical trial and clinical investigation agreements, interacting with healthcare professionals in connection with advertising and promotion efforts, and product classification matters such as borderlines between drug, medical device, cosmetic and food supplement, and assistance with local authorities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve has extensive litigation experience in life science matters, including product liability and advertising and promotional activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve is recognized as one of the \"Most Highly Regarded Individuals\" in the regulatory field (Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences 2016). In the same publication, her clients reported that she has an \"unsurpassed knowledge of legal areas,\" as well as being \"extremely dedicated to the case and the client.\" She has published numerous articles on food and drug law and speaks at legal and regulatory conferences on pharmaceuticals and medical devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOctober 2019, \u0026ldquo;Are the paediatric rewards adapted? \u0026ldquo;, Clinical Research in Paediatric Psychopharmacology, P. Auby, Elsevier, 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMay 30, 2019, \u0026ldquo;The regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLexisNexis.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2017, \u0026ldquo;Pediatric Regulation \u0026ndash; A Better application for more efficient incentives,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe European Files, Medicines of the Future.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2016, \u0026ldquo;Should Anthroposophic Medicinal Products Be Regulated in Europe?\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJournal of European Health Law\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 8, 2016, \u0026ldquo;Demonstrating Significant Benefit For Orphan Medicines \u0026ndash; Is It Time For A Drastic Change?\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;EU Pediatric Rewards \u0026ndash; More Questions than Answers,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFebruary 2016, \u0026ldquo;The Need For Clarification On Post-Market Requirements For Pediatric Medicines,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 9, 2019, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eSummary of Key EUCJ Decisions\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; European Pharmaceutical Law Academy.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 5, 2019, \u0026ldquo;Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,\u0026rdquo; European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 10, 2018, \u0026ldquo;ATMP Regulatory Framework\u003cem\u003e,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eEuropean Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge, UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 2018, \u0026ldquo;Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,\u0026rdquo; European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMay 15, 2018, \u0026ldquo;International Labeling Regulatory Requirements,\u0026rdquo; co-presented with Hank Bullock, 8th Annual Medical Device \u0026amp; Diagnostic Labeling Conference in Chicago, IL.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 21, 2018, Workshop on Pediatric Regulation and SMi in London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2018, ATMPs \u0026ndash; Challenges and Promises, ERA, EU Pharmaceutical Law.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNovember 2017, Borderline issues, Congr\u0026egrave;s Parfums \u0026amp; Cosm\u0026eacute;tiques, Enjeux r\u0026eacute;glementaires, Chartres.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2017, SPCs and Regulatory Concepts, 9th SPC Forum, Riga.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2017, Pediatric Regulation, KNet365, Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge (UK).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 2017, Regulatory protections, KNet365, Life Science IP Minds 2017, London.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2017, Pediatric rewards, SMI, Pediatric Clinical Trials, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2017, Revision of the Pediatric Regulation, DIA, 29th Annual EuroMeeting, Glasgow.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNovember 2016, SPCs and Regulatory Authorizations, 7th SPC forum in Paris, France.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;Protection for Mature Product,\u0026rdquo; DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting, Hamburg.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;Interactions between regulatory and intellectual property, product liability and data privacy,\u0026rdquo; DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting in Hamburg.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"genevieve-michaux","email":"gmichaux@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1193,"guid":"1193.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Michaux","nick_name":"Geneviève","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Geneviève","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"Law Degree","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1996-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked in the Regulatory Practice","detail":"Best Lawyers Belgium, 2022"},{"title":"Global Elite Thought Leaders EMEA","detail":"WWL Life Sciences Report, 2022"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences","detail":"2011–2022"},{"title":"Excellent in Healthcare, pharmaceuticals \u0026 biotech","detail":"Leadersleague Décideurs Belgium Life Sciences guide, 2021"},{"title":"Legal 500, EU Regulatory and EU Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology","detail":"2012"},{"title":"PLC Which Lawyer?, Life Sciences","detail":"Regulatory, EU, 2012"},{"title":"de Harzen Prize (ULB) for excellence in Case Resolution over all five years of study","detail":"1988"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/geneviève-michaux-165829/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve Michaux is a Belgian- and French-qualified lawyer in the FDA and Life Sciences practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecognized as one of the most highly regarded European Union (EU) life sciences regulatory specialists, Genevi\u0026egrave;ve assists companies on a wide variety of issues under EU and national (French and Belgian) food and drug laws and regulations, with an emphasis on regulatory matters involving drugs, biologics, medical devices, cosmetics and food. She also advises life sciences clients on significant policy developments in the EU and assists with broader European and global projects.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve\u0026rsquo;s work spans matters ranging from regulatory status of borderline products, authorization procedures, life cycle management, clinical trials and investigations, labeling, advertising and promotions for all categories of products, and issues raised by specific categories of medicinal products, such as pediatric, orphan or advance therapy medicinal products. She has advised on various issues arising out of the EU Pediatric Regulation, EU Orphan Regulation, SPC and SPC extension, and ATMPs at the European and national level. She also counsels startups on establishing themselves in the EU as well as complying with advertising and scientific information rules, regulatory and legal guidance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe assists life sciences companies in forming patient/compassionate use programs in Europe, negotiating and drafting consortia related agreements, reviewing clinical trial and clinical investigation agreements, interacting with healthcare professionals in connection with advertising and promotion efforts, and product classification matters such as borderlines between drug, medical device, cosmetic and food supplement, and assistance with local authorities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve has extensive litigation experience in life science matters, including product liability and advertising and promotional activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGenevi\u0026egrave;ve is recognized as one of the \"Most Highly Regarded Individuals\" in the regulatory field (Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences 2016). In the same publication, her clients reported that she has an \"unsurpassed knowledge of legal areas,\" as well as being \"extremely dedicated to the case and the client.\" She has published numerous articles on food and drug law and speaks at legal and regulatory conferences on pharmaceuticals and medical devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOctober 2019, \u0026ldquo;Are the paediatric rewards adapted? \u0026ldquo;, Clinical Research in Paediatric Psychopharmacology, P. Auby, Elsevier, 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMay 30, 2019, \u0026ldquo;The regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLexisNexis.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2017, \u0026ldquo;Pediatric Regulation \u0026ndash; A Better application for more efficient incentives,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe European Files, Medicines of the Future.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2016, \u0026ldquo;Should Anthroposophic Medicinal Products Be Regulated in Europe?\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJournal of European Health Law\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 8, 2016, \u0026ldquo;Demonstrating Significant Benefit For Orphan Medicines \u0026ndash; Is It Time For A Drastic Change?\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;EU Pediatric Rewards \u0026ndash; More Questions than Answers,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFebruary 2016, \u0026ldquo;The Need For Clarification On Post-Market Requirements For Pediatric Medicines,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScrip Regulatory Affairs.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 9, 2019, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eSummary of Key EUCJ Decisions\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; European Pharmaceutical Law Academy.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 5, 2019, \u0026ldquo;Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,\u0026rdquo; European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 10, 2018, \u0026ldquo;ATMP Regulatory Framework\u003cem\u003e,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eEuropean Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge, UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 2018, \u0026ldquo;Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,\u0026rdquo; European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMay 15, 2018, \u0026ldquo;International Labeling Regulatory Requirements,\u0026rdquo; co-presented with Hank Bullock, 8th Annual Medical Device \u0026amp; Diagnostic Labeling Conference in Chicago, IL.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 21, 2018, Workshop on Pediatric Regulation and SMi in London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2018, ATMPs \u0026ndash; Challenges and Promises, ERA, EU Pharmaceutical Law.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNovember 2017, Borderline issues, Congr\u0026egrave;s Parfums \u0026amp; Cosm\u0026eacute;tiques, Enjeux r\u0026eacute;glementaires, Chartres.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2017, SPCs and Regulatory Concepts, 9th SPC Forum, Riga.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeptember 2017, Pediatric Regulation, KNet365, Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge (UK).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJune 2017, Regulatory protections, KNet365, Life Science IP Minds 2017, London.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2017, Pediatric rewards, SMI, Pediatric Clinical Trials, London.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarch 2017, Revision of the Pediatric Regulation, DIA, 29th Annual EuroMeeting, Glasgow.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNovember 2016, SPCs and Regulatory Authorizations, 7th SPC forum in Paris, France.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;Protection for Mature Product,\u0026rdquo; DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting, Hamburg.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eApril 2016, \u0026ldquo;Interactions between regulatory and intellectual property, product liability and data privacy,\u0026rdquo; DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting in Hamburg.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked in the Regulatory Practice","detail":"Best Lawyers Belgium, 2022"},{"title":"Global Elite Thought Leaders EMEA","detail":"WWL Life Sciences Report, 2022"},{"title":"Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences","detail":"2011–2022"},{"title":"Excellent in Healthcare, pharmaceuticals \u0026 biotech","detail":"Leadersleague Décideurs Belgium Life Sciences guide, 2021"},{"title":"Legal 500, EU Regulatory and EU Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology","detail":"2012"},{"title":"PLC Which Lawyer?, Life Sciences","detail":"Regulatory, EU, 2012"},{"title":"de Harzen Prize (ULB) for excellence in Case Resolution over all five years of study","detail":"1988"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8884}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:39.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:39.000Z","searchable_text":"Michaux{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in the Regulatory Practice\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers Belgium, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Global Elite Thought Leaders EMEA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"WWL Life Sciences Report, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2011–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Excellent in Healthcare, pharmaceuticals \u0026amp; biotech\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leadersleague Décideurs Belgium Life Sciences guide, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, EU Regulatory and EU Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"PLC Which Lawyer?, Life Sciences\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Regulatory, EU, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"de Harzen Prize (ULB) for excellence in Case Resolution over all five years of study\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"1988\"}{{ FIELD }}Geneviève Michaux is a Belgian- and French-qualified lawyer in the FDA and Life Sciences practice.\nRecognized as one of the most highly regarded European Union (EU) life sciences regulatory specialists, Geneviève assists companies on a wide variety of issues under EU and national (French and Belgian) food and drug laws and regulations, with an emphasis on regulatory matters involving drugs, biologics, medical devices, cosmetics and food. She also advises life sciences clients on significant policy developments in the EU and assists with broader European and global projects.\nGeneviève’s work spans matters ranging from regulatory status of borderline products, authorization procedures, life cycle management, clinical trials and investigations, labeling, advertising and promotions for all categories of products, and issues raised by specific categories of medicinal products, such as pediatric, orphan or advance therapy medicinal products. She has advised on various issues arising out of the EU Pediatric Regulation, EU Orphan Regulation, SPC and SPC extension, and ATMPs at the European and national level. She also counsels startups on establishing themselves in the EU as well as complying with advertising and scientific information rules, regulatory and legal guidance.\nShe assists life sciences companies in forming patient/compassionate use programs in Europe, negotiating and drafting consortia related agreements, reviewing clinical trial and clinical investigation agreements, interacting with healthcare professionals in connection with advertising and promotion efforts, and product classification matters such as borderlines between drug, medical device, cosmetic and food supplement, and assistance with local authorities.\nGeneviève has extensive litigation experience in life science matters, including product liability and advertising and promotional activities.\nGeneviève is recognized as one of the \"Most Highly Regarded Individuals\" in the regulatory field (Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences 2016). In the same publication, her clients reported that she has an \"unsurpassed knowledge of legal areas,\" as well as being \"extremely dedicated to the case and the client.\" She has published numerous articles on food and drug law and speaks at legal and regulatory conferences on pharmaceuticals and medical devices.\nPublications\n\nOctober 2019, “Are the paediatric rewards adapted? “, Clinical Research in Paediatric Psychopharmacology, P. Auby, Elsevier, 2020\nMay 30, 2019, “The regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products” LexisNexis.\nApril 2017, “Pediatric Regulation – A Better application for more efficient incentives,” The European Files, Medicines of the Future.\nSeptember 2016, “Should Anthroposophic Medicinal Products Be Regulated in Europe?” Journal of European Health Law\nJune 8, 2016, “Demonstrating Significant Benefit For Orphan Medicines – Is It Time For A Drastic Change?” Scrip Regulatory Affairs.\nApril 2016, “EU Pediatric Rewards – More Questions than Answers,” Scrip Regulatory Affairs.\nFebruary 2016, “The Need For Clarification On Post-Market Requirements For Pediatric Medicines,” Scrip Regulatory Affairs.\n\nSpeaking Engagements\n\nSeptember 9, 2019, “Summary of Key EUCJ Decisions,” European Pharmaceutical Law Academy.\nJune 5, 2019, “Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,” European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\nSeptember 10, 2018, “ATMP Regulatory Framework,” European Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge, UK.\nJune 2018, “Approval Process for Drugs and Medical Devices,” European Healthcare Industry Training: Compliance Certificate Program.\nMay 15, 2018, “International Labeling Regulatory Requirements,” co-presented with Hank Bullock, 8th Annual Medical Device \u0026amp; Diagnostic Labeling Conference in Chicago, IL.\nMarch 21, 2018, Workshop on Pediatric Regulation and SMi in London.\nMarch 2018, ATMPs – Challenges and Promises, ERA, EU Pharmaceutical Law.\nNovember 2017, Borderline issues, Congrès Parfums \u0026amp; Cosmétiques, Enjeux réglementaires, Chartres.\nSeptember 2017, SPCs and Regulatory Concepts, 9th SPC Forum, Riga.\nSeptember 2017, Pediatric Regulation, KNet365, Pharmaceutical Law Academy, Cambridge (UK).\nJune 2017, Regulatory protections, KNet365, Life Science IP Minds 2017, London. \nMarch 2017, Pediatric rewards, SMI, Pediatric Clinical Trials, London.\nMarch 2017, Revision of the Pediatric Regulation, DIA, 29th Annual EuroMeeting, Glasgow.\nNovember 2016, SPCs and Regulatory Authorizations, 7th SPC forum in Paris, France.\nApril 2016, “Protection for Mature Product,” DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting, Hamburg.\nApril 2016, “Interactions between regulatory and intellectual property, product liability and data privacy,” DIA, 28th Annual EuroMeeting in Hamburg.\n Partner Ranked in the Regulatory Practice Best Lawyers Belgium, 2022 Global Elite Thought Leaders EMEA WWL Life Sciences Report, 2022 Who's Who Legal, Life Sciences 2011–2022 Excellent in Healthcare, pharmaceuticals \u0026amp; biotech Leadersleague Décideurs Belgium Life Sciences guide, 2021 Legal 500, EU Regulatory and EU Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology 2012 PLC Which Lawyer?, Life Sciences Regulatory, EU, 2012 de Harzen Prize (ULB) for excellence in Case Resolution over all five years of study 1988 Harvard University Harvard Law School Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium  Paris Brussels Member of the editorial board of SCRIP Regulatory Affairs Mediator with the Brussels Business Mediation Center Member of the DIA Advisory Committee for Europe Middle East Africa Foreign Correspondent Member of the National Academy of Pharmacy (France)","searchable_name":"Geneviève Michaux","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":436475,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5092,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTroy McMahan has more than 30 years of experience defending Fortune 500 companies in cases involving premises and products liability claims, toxic tort claims, maritime claims and business disputes involving the improper use of proprietary information. He serves as counsel for multiple corporations and organizations across a broad range of industries including Chevron, Texaco, and Dow.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTroy often acts as jointly retained counsel for multiple industry defendants and has years of experience in structuring and managing such joint defenses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTroy has extensive experience litigating product and premises liability dockets throughout the U.S. including California. He specializes in toxic tort cases involving claims of contaminants exposure from the workplace or through consumer goods. Troy also has special expertise in product liability defense for automobile manufacturers in cases involving automotive design and manufacture. He has tried jury cases to verdict involving asbestos-containing brake products, and has\u0026nbsp;secured defense verdicts for automobile manufacturers in cases alleging that a defective ignition switch\u0026nbsp;caused a vehicle fire and subsequent property damage, as well as a case alleging violations of the California\u0026nbsp;Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTroy has received recognition as a top rated products liability attorney on numerous occasions by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and he has been invited to be a guest instructor for\u0026nbsp;a course entitled \"Depositions - Witness Preparation\"\u0026nbsp;at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Feb. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"troy-mcmahan","email":"tmcmahan@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFood and Beverage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eegg producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with commercial claims arising from a 2010 salmonella outbreak and recall (the largest egg salmonella outbreak in history) and related FDA investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eToxic Tort\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCounsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecrude oil refiners\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;manufacturers of industrial commercial and consumer grade chemical products\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in personal injury and wrongful death cases involving cancer, systemic diseases and immune system dysfunction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMaritime\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003evessel owners and operators\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in matters involving wrongful death and personal injury cases filed by seaman, longshoreman and shipyard contractors under federal maritime law \u0026mdash; Jones Act, Longshoreman and Harbor Workers\u0026rsquo; Compensation Act and federal maritime common law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured summary judgment for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eshipping client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a case of first impression \u0026mdash; whether federal maritime law imposes a duty upon a ship owner to protect offshore third parties from injuries occurring as a result of activities performed aboard ship. Specifically, plaintiff claimed exposure to toxins used aboard the vessel, and which his father \u0026mdash; an officer aboard the vessel \u0026mdash; allegedly brought home on his uniform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAsbestos\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron U.S.A. Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTexaco Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Dow Chemical Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in trial asbestos product and premises liability dockets throughout the State of California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAutomotive\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecured a defense verdict at trial on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFord Motor Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon insurance subrogation claim brought by an insurance company against Ford based on claims of a defective ignition switch.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFord Motor Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s product liability claim based on allegations that a defective seatbelt caused plaintiff to sustain injuries during an automobile accident.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured a defense judgment on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign gas tank manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a personal injury case brought by several plaintiffs who sustained personal injuries when their personal watercraft exploded causing several of the plaintiffs to claim brain damage, partial blindness and severe emotional distress.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGovernment Tort Liability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in various personal injury and property damage claims arising from construction activities occurring during the BART extension projects.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McMahan","nick_name":"Troy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Troy","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Selected to Super Lawyers (2006, 2010-2015, 2020)","detail":"Super Lawyers"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTroy McMahan has more than 30 years of experience defending Fortune 500 companies in cases involving premises and products liability claims, toxic tort claims, maritime claims and business disputes involving the improper use of proprietary information. He serves as counsel for multiple corporations and organizations across a broad range of industries including Chevron, Texaco, and Dow.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTroy often acts as jointly retained counsel for multiple industry defendants and has years of experience in structuring and managing such joint defenses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTroy has extensive experience litigating product and premises liability dockets throughout the U.S. including California. He specializes in toxic tort cases involving claims of contaminants exposure from the workplace or through consumer goods. Troy also has special expertise in product liability defense for automobile manufacturers in cases involving automotive design and manufacture. He has tried jury cases to verdict involving asbestos-containing brake products, and has\u0026nbsp;secured defense verdicts for automobile manufacturers in cases alleging that a defective ignition switch\u0026nbsp;caused a vehicle fire and subsequent property damage, as well as a case alleging violations of the California\u0026nbsp;Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTroy has received recognition as a top rated products liability attorney on numerous occasions by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and he has been invited to be a guest instructor for\u0026nbsp;a course entitled \"Depositions - Witness Preparation\"\u0026nbsp;at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Feb. 2024).\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFood and Beverage\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eegg producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with commercial claims arising from a 2010 salmonella outbreak and recall (the largest egg salmonella outbreak in history) and related FDA investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eToxic Tort\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCounsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecrude oil refiners\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;manufacturers of industrial commercial and consumer grade chemical products\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in personal injury and wrongful death cases involving cancer, systemic diseases and immune system dysfunction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMaritime\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003evessel owners and operators\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in matters involving wrongful death and personal injury cases filed by seaman, longshoreman and shipyard contractors under federal maritime law \u0026mdash; Jones Act, Longshoreman and Harbor Workers\u0026rsquo; Compensation Act and federal maritime common law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured summary judgment for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eshipping client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a case of first impression \u0026mdash; whether federal maritime law imposes a duty upon a ship owner to protect offshore third parties from injuries occurring as a result of activities performed aboard ship. Specifically, plaintiff claimed exposure to toxins used aboard the vessel, and which his father \u0026mdash; an officer aboard the vessel \u0026mdash; allegedly brought home on his uniform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAsbestos\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron U.S.A. Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTexaco Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Dow Chemical Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in trial asbestos product and premises liability dockets throughout the State of California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAutomotive\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecured a defense verdict at trial on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFord Motor Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon insurance subrogation claim brought by an insurance company against Ford based on claims of a defective ignition switch.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFord Motor Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s product liability claim based on allegations that a defective seatbelt caused plaintiff to sustain injuries during an automobile accident.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured a defense judgment on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign gas tank manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a personal injury case brought by several plaintiffs who sustained personal injuries when their personal watercraft exploded causing several of the plaintiffs to claim brain damage, partial blindness and severe emotional distress.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGovernment Tort Liability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in various personal injury and property damage claims arising from construction activities occurring during the BART extension projects.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Selected to Super Lawyers (2006, 2010-2015, 2020)","detail":"Super Lawyers"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5912}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:55:26.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:55:26.000Z","searchable_text":"McMahan{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected to Super Lawyers (2006, 2010-2015, 2020)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}Food and Beverage\nRepresented an egg producer in connection with commercial claims arising from a 2010 salmonella outbreak and recall (the largest egg salmonella outbreak in history) and related FDA investigation.{{ FIELD }}Toxic Tort\nCounsel for crude oil refiners and manufacturers of industrial commercial and consumer grade chemical products in personal injury and wrongful death cases involving cancer, systemic diseases and immune system dysfunction.{{ FIELD }}Maritime\nRepresent vessel owners and operators in matters involving wrongful death and personal injury cases filed by seaman, longshoreman and shipyard contractors under federal maritime law — Jones Act, Longshoreman and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act and federal maritime common law.{{ FIELD }}Secured summary judgment for a shipping client in a case of first impression — whether federal maritime law imposes a duty upon a ship owner to protect offshore third parties from injuries occurring as a result of activities performed aboard ship. Specifically, plaintiff claimed exposure to toxins used aboard the vessel, and which his father — an officer aboard the vessel — allegedly brought home on his uniform.{{ FIELD }}Asbestos\nRepresent Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Texaco Inc., and The Dow Chemical Company in trial asbestos product and premises liability dockets throughout the State of California.{{ FIELD }}Automotive\nSecured a defense verdict at trial on behalf of the Ford Motor Company on insurance subrogation claim brought by an insurance company against Ford based on claims of a defective ignition switch.{{ FIELD }}Secured summary judgment for Ford Motor Company against plaintiff’s product liability claim based on allegations that a defective seatbelt caused plaintiff to sustain injuries during an automobile accident.{{ FIELD }}Secured a defense judgment on behalf of a foreign gas tank manufacturer in a personal injury case brought by several plaintiffs who sustained personal injuries when their personal watercraft exploded causing several of the plaintiffs to claim brain damage, partial blindness and severe emotional distress.{{ FIELD }}Government Tort Liability\nRepresented the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) in various personal injury and property damage claims arising from construction activities occurring during the BART extension projects.{{ FIELD }}Troy McMahan has more than 30 years of experience defending Fortune 500 companies in cases involving premises and products liability claims, toxic tort claims, maritime claims and business disputes involving the improper use of proprietary information. He serves as counsel for multiple corporations and organizations across a broad range of industries including Chevron, Texaco, and Dow.\nTroy often acts as jointly retained counsel for multiple industry defendants and has years of experience in structuring and managing such joint defenses.\nTroy has extensive experience litigating product and premises liability dockets throughout the U.S. including California. He specializes in toxic tort cases involving claims of contaminants exposure from the workplace or through consumer goods. Troy also has special expertise in product liability defense for automobile manufacturers in cases involving automotive design and manufacture. He has tried jury cases to verdict involving asbestos-containing brake products, and has secured defense verdicts for automobile manufacturers in cases alleging that a defective ignition switch caused a vehicle fire and subsequent property damage, as well as a case alleging violations of the California Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. \nTroy has received recognition as a top rated products liability attorney on numerous occasions by Super Lawyers, and he has been invited to be a guest instructor for a course entitled \"Depositions - Witness Preparation\" at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Feb. 2024). Counsel Selected to Super Lawyers (2006, 2010-2015, 2020) Super Lawyers University of Idaho University of Idaho College of Law University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 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 California Bar Association of San Francisco Alameda County Bar Association Association of Defense Counsel American Bar Association — Environmental, Product Liability and Mass Tort Sections member Defense Research Institute — Drug and Medical Device, Product Liability and Toxic Tort Committees member Food and Beverage\nRepresented an egg producer in connection with commercial claims arising from a 2010 salmonella outbreak and recall (the largest egg salmonella outbreak in history) and related FDA investigation. Toxic Tort\nCounsel for crude oil refiners and manufacturers of industrial commercial and consumer grade chemical products in personal injury and wrongful death cases involving cancer, systemic diseases and immune system dysfunction. Maritime\nRepresent vessel owners and operators in matters involving wrongful death and personal injury cases filed by seaman, longshoreman and shipyard contractors under federal maritime law — Jones Act, Longshoreman and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act and federal maritime common law. Secured summary judgment for a shipping client in a case of first impression — whether federal maritime law imposes a duty upon a ship owner to protect offshore third parties from injuries occurring as a result of activities performed aboard ship. Specifically, plaintiff claimed exposure to toxins used aboard the vessel, and which his father — an officer aboard the vessel — allegedly brought home on his uniform. Asbestos\nRepresent Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Texaco Inc., and The Dow Chemical Company in trial asbestos product and premises liability dockets throughout the State of California. Automotive\nSecured a defense verdict at trial on behalf of the Ford Motor Company on insurance subrogation claim brought by an insurance company against Ford based on claims of a defective ignition switch. Secured summary judgment for Ford Motor Company against plaintiff’s product liability claim based on allegations that a defective seatbelt caused plaintiff to sustain injuries during an automobile accident. Secured a defense judgment on behalf of a foreign gas tank manufacturer in a personal injury case brought by several plaintiffs who sustained personal injuries when their personal watercraft exploded causing several of the plaintiffs to claim brain damage, partial blindness and severe emotional distress. Government Tort Liability\nRepresented the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) in various personal injury and property damage claims arising from construction activities occurring during the BART extension projects.","searchable_name":"Troy D. McMahan","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":196,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442406,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1253,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMegan Michelsen is a lawyer with King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practice. Her practice focuses mainly on the representation of clients in the pharmaceutical industry and other FDA-regulated clients. She has experience with large-scale, multidistrict litigations as well as individual product liability actions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"megan-michelsen","email":"mmichelsen@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Michelsen","nick_name":"Megan","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Megan","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMegan Michelsen is a lawyer with King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practice. Her practice focuses mainly on the representation of clients in the pharmaceutical industry and other FDA-regulated clients. She has experience with large-scale, multidistrict litigations as well as individual product liability actions.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1062}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:28.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:28.000Z","searchable_text":"Michelsen{{ FIELD }}Megan Michelsen is a lawyer with King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practice. Her practice focuses mainly on the representation of clients in the pharmaceutical industry and other FDA-regulated clients. She has experience with large-scale, multidistrict litigations as well as individual product liability actions. Associate McDaniel College  University of Maryland  Georgia State Bar of Georgia","searchable_name":"Megan M. Michelsen","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":446355,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5992,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSimran is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and is a member of the Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. Simran's practice focuses on representing businesses in high-stakes commercial litigation, complex business disputes, and product liability litigation. She is a team member on several matters, including representation for Fortune 500 companies such as Coca-Cola, R.J. Reynolds, and Boehringer Ingelheim.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimran graduated with honors from the Emory University School of Law, where she also served on the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEmory Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e. Prior to law school, she received her Bachelor of Science in Psychology and a certificate in Legal Studies\u0026nbsp;from the University of Georgia, where she graduated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esumma\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ec\u003cem\u003eum laude\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"simran-modi","email":"smodi@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Modi","nick_name":"Simran","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Simran","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":174,"law_schools":[{"id":659,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with honors","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSimran is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and is a member of the Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. Simran's practice focuses on representing businesses in high-stakes commercial litigation, complex business disputes, and product liability litigation. She is a team member on several matters, including representation for Fortune 500 companies such as Coca-Cola, R.J. Reynolds, and Boehringer Ingelheim.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimran graduated with honors from the Emory University School of Law, where she also served on the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEmory Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e. Prior to law school, she received her Bachelor of Science in Psychology and a certificate in Legal Studies\u0026nbsp;from the University of Georgia, where she graduated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esumma\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ec\u003cem\u003eum laude\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11797}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-02T21:59:57.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-02T21:59:57.000Z","searchable_text":"Modi{{ FIELD }}Simran is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and is a member of the Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group. Simran's practice focuses on representing businesses in high-stakes commercial litigation, complex business disputes, and product liability litigation. She is a team member on several matters, including representation for Fortune 500 companies such as Coca-Cola, R.J. Reynolds, and Boehringer Ingelheim. \nSimran graduated with honors from the Emory University School of Law, where she also served on the Emory Law Journal. Prior to law school, she received her Bachelor of Science in Psychology and a certificate in Legal Studies from the University of Georgia, where she graduated summa cum laude.  Associate University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia DeKalb County Superior Court Board of Directors, Atlanta Bar Association Women in the Profession Section Board of Directors, Atlanta Council for Younger Lawyers Board of Directors, South Asian Bar Association of Georgia","searchable_name":"Simran Modi","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":174,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427255,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6548,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Mosher represents Fortune 100 and other large companies in a diverse range of complex matters, including toxic and environmental torts, products liability, and consumer litigation. He has experience in high-stakes litigation and his cases frequently include novel medical, scientific and legal issues. As part of his practice, Michael has drafted dispositive and discovery motions, assisted in developing litigation and trial strategy, spearheaded fact investigations, and helped secure both favorable settlements and dismissals.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael joined the firm after graduating from Loyola Law School. While in school, he externed for the Honorable R. Gary Klausner at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, as well as the Honorable Sheri Bluebond at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. Michael also served as a Senior Production Editor for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLoyola of Los Angeles Law Review\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn his last semester, Michael competed in the Scott Moot Court Competition, where he wrote a U.S. Supreme Court brief and argued complex Second and Fourth Amendment issues. He won the award for Best Brief and was a finalist in the oral argument portion of the competition.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-mosher","email":"mmosher@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3570}]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mosher","nick_name":"Michael","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Michael Mosher is an  associate of our Product Liability \u0026 Mass Torts Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Mosher represents Fortune 100 and other large companies in a diverse range of complex matters, including toxic and environmental torts, products liability, and consumer litigation. He has experience in high-stakes litigation and his cases frequently include novel medical, scientific and legal issues. As part of his practice, Michael has drafted dispositive and discovery motions, assisted in developing litigation and trial strategy, spearheaded fact investigations, and helped secure both favorable settlements and dismissals.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael joined the firm after graduating from Loyola Law School. While in school, he externed for the Honorable R. Gary Klausner at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, as well as the Honorable Sheri Bluebond at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. Michael also served as a Senior Production Editor for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLoyola of Los Angeles Law Review\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn his last semester, Michael competed in the Scott Moot Court Competition, where he wrote a U.S. Supreme Court brief and argued complex Second and Fourth Amendment issues. He won the award for Best Brief and was a finalist in the oral argument portion of the competition.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12420}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:59:27.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:59:27.000Z","searchable_text":"Mosher{{ FIELD }}Michael Mosher represents Fortune 100 and other large companies in a diverse range of complex matters, including toxic and environmental torts, products liability, and consumer litigation. He has experience in high-stakes litigation and his cases frequently include novel medical, scientific and legal issues. As part of his practice, Michael has drafted dispositive and discovery motions, assisted in developing litigation and trial strategy, spearheaded fact investigations, and helped secure both favorable settlements and dismissals. \nMichael joined the firm after graduating from Loyola Law School. While in school, he externed for the Honorable R. Gary Klausner at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, as well as the Honorable Sheri Bluebond at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. Michael also served as a Senior Production Editor for the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review.\nIn his last semester, Michael competed in the Scott Moot Court Competition, where he wrote a U.S. Supreme Court brief and argued complex Second and Fourth Amendment issues. He won the award for Best Brief and was a finalist in the oral argument portion of the competition. Michael Mosher lawyer Associate Loyola Law School Loyola Law School Central District of California California","searchable_name":"Michael Mosher","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":430896,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6886,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChandler Mulford is an associate in the Firm's Product Liability \u0026amp; Mass Torts practice group.\u0026nbsp; His\u0026nbsp;practice focuses on representing clients across the automotive, consumer goods, pharmaceutical, and aviation industries\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;complex, nationwide\u0026nbsp;mass tort and product liability\u0026nbsp;litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Chandler's experience spans multiple\u0026nbsp;phases of litigation, including case assessment,\u0026nbsp;discovery, internal investigations, depositions, motions practice, and trial.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChandler graduated from\u0026nbsp;the University of Georgia,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand Phi Beta Kappa, in 2018\u0026nbsp;with an A.B. in Spanish.\u0026nbsp; He received his J.D. from the\u0026nbsp;University of Georgia School of Law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 2021 and was inducted into the Order of the Coif.\u0026nbsp; During law school,\u0026nbsp;Chandler prosecuted multiple complex fraud cases\u0026nbsp;while working for the\u0026nbsp;United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter law school, Chandler clerked for the Honorable C. Ashley Royal of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.\u0026nbsp; Chandler\u0026nbsp;maintains an active pro bono practice and currently serves on USA Swimming's National Board of Review.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"chandler-mulford","email":"cmulford@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3883}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mulford","nick_name":"Chandler","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, C. Ashley Royal, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia","years_held":"2021 - 2023"}],"first_name":"Chandler","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2190,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2021-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Chandler Mulford is a lawyer of our Product Liability \u0026 Mass Torts Practice Group.","primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChandler Mulford is an associate in the Firm's Product Liability \u0026amp; Mass Torts practice group.\u0026nbsp; His\u0026nbsp;practice focuses on representing clients across the automotive, consumer goods, pharmaceutical, and aviation industries\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;complex, nationwide\u0026nbsp;mass tort and product liability\u0026nbsp;litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Chandler's experience spans multiple\u0026nbsp;phases of litigation, including case assessment,\u0026nbsp;discovery, internal investigations, depositions, motions practice, and trial.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChandler graduated from\u0026nbsp;the University of Georgia,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand Phi Beta Kappa, in 2018\u0026nbsp;with an A.B. in Spanish.\u0026nbsp; He received his J.D. from the\u0026nbsp;University of Georgia School of Law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 2021 and was inducted into the Order of the Coif.\u0026nbsp; During law school,\u0026nbsp;Chandler prosecuted multiple complex fraud cases\u0026nbsp;while working for the\u0026nbsp;United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter law school, Chandler clerked for the Honorable C. Ashley Royal of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.\u0026nbsp; Chandler\u0026nbsp;maintains an active pro bono practice and currently serves on USA Swimming's National Board of Review.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12901}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-06-27T17:37:50.000Z","updated_at":"2025-06-27T17:37:50.000Z","searchable_text":"Mulford{{ FIELD }}Chandler Mulford is an associate in the Firm's Product Liability \u0026amp; Mass Torts practice group.  His practice focuses on representing clients across the automotive, consumer goods, pharmaceutical, and aviation industries in complex, nationwide mass tort and product liability litigation.  Chandler's experience spans multiple phases of litigation, including case assessment, discovery, internal investigations, depositions, motions practice, and trial. \nChandler graduated from the University of Georgia, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, in 2018 with an A.B. in Spanish.  He received his J.D. from the University of Georgia School of Law, magna cum laude in 2021 and was inducted into the Order of the Coif.  During law school, Chandler prosecuted multiple complex fraud cases while working for the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia.\nAfter law school, Chandler clerked for the Honorable C. Ashley Royal of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.  Chandler maintains an active pro bono practice and currently serves on USA Swimming's National Board of Review.  Chandler Mulford lawyer Associate University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Judicial Clerk, C. Ashley Royal, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia","searchable_name":"Chandler Mulford","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444857,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6720,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSabrina Murugesu is an associate in the King \u0026amp; Spalding's Products Liability and Mass Torts practice group. She defends companies in the automotive, technology and consumer products sectors.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSabrina graduated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;from the University of San Francisco, School of Law, where she served as the Executive Director of the Moot Court Program and as a Senior Staffer for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUniversity of San Francisco Law Review\u003c/em\u003e. While in law school, she interned for a judge in Santa Clara County Superior Court's civil division.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"sabrina-murugesu","email":"smurugesu@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Murugesu","nick_name":"Sabrina","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Sabrina","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2378,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2025-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Devi","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSabrina Murugesu is an associate in the King \u0026amp; Spalding's Products Liability and Mass Torts practice group. She defends companies in the automotive, technology and consumer products sectors.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSabrina graduated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;from the University of San Francisco, School of Law, where she served as the Executive Director of the Moot Court Program and as a Senior Staffer for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUniversity of San Francisco Law Review\u003c/em\u003e. While in law school, she interned for a judge in Santa Clara County Superior Court's civil division.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13283}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-07T23:01:19.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-07T23:01:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Murugesu{{ FIELD }}Sabrina Murugesu is an associate in the King \u0026amp; Spalding's Products Liability and Mass Torts practice group. She defends companies in the automotive, technology and consumer products sectors. \nSabrina graduated cum laude from the University of San Francisco, School of Law, where she served as the Executive Director of the Moot Court Program and as a Senior Staffer for the University of San Francisco Law Review. While in law school, she interned for a judge in Santa Clara County Superior Court's civil division. Associate University of California at Santa Cruz  University of San Francisco University of San Francisco School of Law California","searchable_name":"Sabrina Devi Murugesu","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":444741,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":383,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJennifer Maddrey is an attorney in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta office and is a member of the Trial and Global Disputes group. Her practice currently focuses on defending clients in high-stakes commercial litigation, complex business disputes, product liability litigation, and government investigations across a broad range of industries, including automotive, healthcare, technology, and retail products. She has experience in all aspects of pre-trial practice, including fact investigation, discovery, preparing for depositions, motions practice, and witness preparation. Jennifer also maintains an active pro bono practice, focusing mainly on assisting veterans and their families in obtaining disability and other benefits.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a complement to her litigation practice, Jennifer stays abreast of trends in the litigation technology industry and monitors case law developments concerning e-discovery matters. Jennifer has experience in coordinating and supervising the selection of e-discovery vendors and developing protocols for data mapping, early case assessment, objective coding, and collecting, reviewing and producing documents.\u0026nbsp;Her experience also includes training and managing document review teams on case background and other issues relevant to large-scale document review projects, including preparation of privilege logs.\u0026nbsp;Additionally, she has significant experience with a variety of document review and litigation support systems, including Relativity, Nuix, EnCase, Concordance, Ipro, and Microsoft Access.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePippins\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e KPMG \u003c/em\u003eMay Lead Corporations To Overpreserve But Also Teaches How To Avoid It,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eThe Metropolitan Corporate Counsel\u003c/em\u003e, April 2012.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"jennifer-maddrey","email":"jmaddrey@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Maddrey","nick_name":"Jennifer","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, The Honorable Robert J. James, Douglas Superior Court, Georgia","years_held":"1999-2002"}],"first_name":"Jennifer","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":720,"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":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":84,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJennifer Maddrey is an attorney in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta office and is a member of the Trial and Global Disputes group. Her practice currently focuses on defending clients in high-stakes commercial litigation, complex business disputes, product liability litigation, and government investigations across a broad range of industries, including automotive, healthcare, technology, and retail products. She has experience in all aspects of pre-trial practice, including fact investigation, discovery, preparing for depositions, motions practice, and witness preparation. Jennifer also maintains an active pro bono practice, focusing mainly on assisting veterans and their families in obtaining disability and other benefits.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a complement to her litigation practice, Jennifer stays abreast of trends in the litigation technology industry and monitors case law developments concerning e-discovery matters. Jennifer has experience in coordinating and supervising the selection of e-discovery vendors and developing protocols for data mapping, early case assessment, objective coding, and collecting, reviewing and producing documents.\u0026nbsp;Her experience also includes training and managing document review teams on case background and other issues relevant to large-scale document review projects, including preparation of privilege logs.\u0026nbsp;Additionally, she has significant experience with a variety of document review and litigation support systems, including Relativity, Nuix, EnCase, Concordance, Ipro, and Microsoft Access.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePippins\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e KPMG \u003c/em\u003eMay Lead Corporations To Overpreserve But Also Teaches How To Avoid It,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eThe Metropolitan Corporate Counsel\u003c/em\u003e, April 2012.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6267}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-02T16:04:42.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T16:04:42.000Z","searchable_text":"Maddrey{{ FIELD }}Jennifer Maddrey is an attorney in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Atlanta office and is a member of the Trial and Global Disputes group. Her practice currently focuses on defending clients in high-stakes commercial litigation, complex business disputes, product liability litigation, and government investigations across a broad range of industries, including automotive, healthcare, technology, and retail products. She has experience in all aspects of pre-trial practice, including fact investigation, discovery, preparing for depositions, motions practice, and witness preparation. Jennifer also maintains an active pro bono practice, focusing mainly on assisting veterans and their families in obtaining disability and other benefits. \nAs a complement to her litigation practice, Jennifer stays abreast of trends in the litigation technology industry and monitors case law developments concerning e-discovery matters. Jennifer has experience in coordinating and supervising the selection of e-discovery vendors and developing protocols for data mapping, early case assessment, objective coding, and collecting, reviewing and producing documents. Her experience also includes training and managing document review teams on case background and other issues relevant to large-scale document review projects, including preparation of privilege logs. Additionally, she has significant experience with a variety of document review and litigation support systems, including Relativity, Nuix, EnCase, Concordance, Ipro, and Microsoft Access. \nPublications\n\nCo-author, “Pippins KPMG May Lead Corporations To Overpreserve But Also Teaches How To Avoid It,” The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, April 2012.\n Senior Attorney San Diego State University  Florida State University Florida State University College of Law Baylor University Baylor University School of Law U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia State Bar of Georgia The Florida Bar Law Clerk, The Honorable Robert J. James, Douglas Superior Court, Georgia","searchable_name":"Jennifer A. Maddrey","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}]}}