{"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":"5","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"E","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":446379,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7344,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatrina is a trial lawyer and litigator with a passion for bet-the-business complex commercial, class action, intellectual property, and qui tam disputes. She is known for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatrina brings extensive experience across a broad spectrum of commercial disputes, including class action defense, fraud, breach of contract, non-compete and non-solicitation, partnership disputes, business torts, unfair competition, patent and trademark infringement, whistleblowing, and securities fraud. This breadth of experience allows her to approach each matter with efficiency, clarity, and strategic precision. Katrina understands that true success extends beyond legal victories\u0026mdash;winning means aligning litigation strategy with her client\u0026rsquo;s overarching business objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatrina\u0026rsquo;s experience representing direct‑selling organizations is particularly notable. She was recognized by \u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; for her work defending direct‑selling companies in high‑stakes, bet‑the‑business disputes. On the litigation front, she has successfully defended dozens of direct‑selling companies in class actions and downline‑raiding cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHer work in this space extends well beyond litigation. Katrina is frequently called upon to defend direct‑selling and other companies facing Federal Trade Commission and state regulatory investigations, advise on regulatory compliance, and guide clients through high‑profile publicity crises. In each instance, she helps clients navigate risk decisively while protecting both their legal position and their brand.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"katrina-eash","email":"keash@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of class claims for \u003cstrong\u003emulti-level marketing organization\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company class action after successfully compelling arbitration and enforcement of class-action waiver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003emultiple multi-level marketing organizations\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company class action litigation involving pyramid scheme allegations under RICO and federal securities laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising numerous \u003cstrong\u003emulti-level marketing organizations\u003c/strong\u003e regarding amendments to their governing documents and contracts with independent contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 computer company\u003c/strong\u003e against patent infringement claims and obtained dismissal of the claims following numerous dispositive and favorable Markman.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 computer company\u003c/strong\u003e against patent infringement claims and after exposing legal flaws in the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s case, obtained favorable settlement for my client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003erelators\u003c/strong\u003e in qui tam action alleging violations of both federal and state false claims prevention acts related to a clinical laboratory testing conspiracy carried out by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003eloyalty rewards corporation\u003c/strong\u003e from a hostile takeover of its board of directors by obtaining an injunction preventing the expansion of the board of directors. Decision affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003elarge steel fabrication company\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company suit against competitor. Obtained early injunction against competitor restraining the competitor\u0026rsquo;s theft and unlawful use of trade secrets. After litigating for two years, obtained successful settlement for client on eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e in case alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation when portfolio company defaulted on certain debts. Obtained dismissal of all claims against fund totaling more than US$7M.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eportfolio of oil and gas companies\u003c/strong\u003e against wrongful termination and breach of contract allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003egroup of vascular surgeons\u003c/strong\u003e against wrongful termination claims and obtained dismissal of numerous claims and defendants prior to trial and a take nothing judgment on all remaining claims following trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Eash","nick_name":"Katrina","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Chad Everingham, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2010 - 2012"}],"first_name":"Katrina","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":1852,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"G.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” - General Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“500 X – The Next Generation”- Complex Commercial Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“Under 40 Hot List” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020–2023"},{"title":"“Future Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"“Women in Business” List","detail":"Dallas Business Journal, 2023"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2020–2023"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2026"},{"title":"“Super Lawyers Rising Stars”","detail":"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2018–2019, 2021, and 2023"},{"title":"“Up-and-Coming 50: Women Texas Rising Stars” ","detail":"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2023"},{"title":"“Texas Trailblazer”","detail":"Texas Lawyers, 2019"},{"title":"Named to “20 Under 40” List","detail":"Park Cities People, 2019"},{"title":"Professional Excellence Honors “On the Rise”","detail":"Texas Lawyers, 2019"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"SMU Deadman School of Law"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatrina is a trial lawyer and litigator with a passion for bet-the-business complex commercial, class action, intellectual property, and qui tam disputes. She is known for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatrina brings extensive experience across a broad spectrum of commercial disputes, including class action defense, fraud, breach of contract, non-compete and non-solicitation, partnership disputes, business torts, unfair competition, patent and trademark infringement, whistleblowing, and securities fraud. This breadth of experience allows her to approach each matter with efficiency, clarity, and strategic precision. Katrina understands that true success extends beyond legal victories\u0026mdash;winning means aligning litigation strategy with her client\u0026rsquo;s overarching business objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatrina\u0026rsquo;s experience representing direct‑selling organizations is particularly notable. She was recognized by \u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; for her work defending direct‑selling companies in high‑stakes, bet‑the‑business disputes. On the litigation front, she has successfully defended dozens of direct‑selling companies in class actions and downline‑raiding cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHer work in this space extends well beyond litigation. Katrina is frequently called upon to defend direct‑selling and other companies facing Federal Trade Commission and state regulatory investigations, advise on regulatory compliance, and guide clients through high‑profile publicity crises. In each instance, she helps clients navigate risk decisively while protecting both their legal position and their brand.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of class claims for \u003cstrong\u003emulti-level marketing organization\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company class action after successfully compelling arbitration and enforcement of class-action waiver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003emultiple multi-level marketing organizations\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company class action litigation involving pyramid scheme allegations under RICO and federal securities laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising numerous \u003cstrong\u003emulti-level marketing organizations\u003c/strong\u003e regarding amendments to their governing documents and contracts with independent contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 computer company\u003c/strong\u003e against patent infringement claims and obtained dismissal of the claims following numerous dispositive and favorable Markman.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 computer company\u003c/strong\u003e against patent infringement claims and after exposing legal flaws in the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s case, obtained favorable settlement for my client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003erelators\u003c/strong\u003e in qui tam action alleging violations of both federal and state false claims prevention acts related to a clinical laboratory testing conspiracy carried out by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong\u003eloyalty rewards corporation\u003c/strong\u003e from a hostile takeover of its board of directors by obtaining an injunction preventing the expansion of the board of directors. Decision affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003elarge steel fabrication company\u003c/strong\u003e in bet-the-company suit against competitor. Obtained early injunction against competitor restraining the competitor\u0026rsquo;s theft and unlawful use of trade secrets. After litigating for two years, obtained successful settlement for client on eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e in case alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation when portfolio company defaulted on certain debts. Obtained dismissal of all claims against fund totaling more than US$7M.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eportfolio of oil and gas companies\u003c/strong\u003e against wrongful termination and breach of contract allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003egroup of vascular surgeons\u003c/strong\u003e against wrongful termination claims and obtained dismissal of numerous claims and defendants prior to trial and a take nothing judgment on all remaining claims following trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” - General Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“500 X – The Next Generation”- Complex Commercial Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“Under 40 Hot List” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2020–2023"},{"title":"“Future Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"“Women in Business” List","detail":"Dallas Business Journal, 2023"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2020–2023"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2026"},{"title":"“Super Lawyers Rising Stars”","detail":"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2018–2019, 2021, and 2023"},{"title":"“Up-and-Coming 50: Women Texas Rising Stars” ","detail":"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2023"},{"title":"“Texas Trailblazer”","detail":"Texas Lawyers, 2019"},{"title":"Named to “20 Under 40” List","detail":"Park Cities People, 2019"},{"title":"Professional Excellence Honors “On the Rise”","detail":"Texas Lawyers, 2019"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"SMU Deadman School of Law"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13384}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T15:07:24.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T15:07:24.000Z","searchable_text":"Eash{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Up and Coming Practitioner” - General Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 X – The Next Generation”- Complex Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Under 40 Hot List” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2020–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Future Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2021–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Property Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Women in Business” List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Dallas Business Journal, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“40 \u0026amp; Under” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2020–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Future Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Super Lawyers Rising Stars”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2018–2019, 2021, and 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Up-and-Coming 50: Women Texas Rising Stars” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Monthly Magazine, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Texas Trailblazer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyers, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to “20 Under 40” List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Park Cities People, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Professional Excellence Honors “On the Rise”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyers, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Coif\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"SMU Deadman School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of class claims for multi-level marketing organization in bet-the-company class action after successfully compelling arbitration and enforcement of class-action waiver.{{ FIELD }}Representing multiple multi-level marketing organizations in bet-the-company class action litigation involving pyramid scheme allegations under RICO and federal securities laws.{{ FIELD }}Advising numerous multi-level marketing organizations regarding amendments to their governing documents and contracts with independent contractors.{{ FIELD }}Represented Fortune 100 computer company against patent infringement claims and obtained dismissal of the claims following numerous dispositive and favorable Markman.{{ FIELD }}Represented Fortune 100 computer company against patent infringement claims and after exposing legal flaws in the plaintiff’s case, obtained favorable settlement for my client.{{ FIELD }}Representing relators in qui tam action alleging violations of both federal and state false claims prevention acts related to a clinical laboratory testing conspiracy carried out by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings.{{ FIELD }}Defended loyalty rewards corporation from a hostile takeover of its board of directors by obtaining an injunction preventing the expansion of the board of directors. Decision affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals.{{ FIELD }}Represented large steel fabrication company in bet-the-company suit against competitor. Obtained early injunction against competitor restraining the competitor’s theft and unlawful use of trade secrets. After litigating for two years, obtained successful settlement for client on eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented private equity fund in case alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation when portfolio company defaulted on certain debts. Obtained dismissal of all claims against fund totaling more than US$7M.{{ FIELD }}Representing a portfolio of oil and gas companies against wrongful termination and breach of contract allegations.{{ FIELD }}Represented a group of vascular surgeons against wrongful termination claims and obtained dismissal of numerous claims and defendants prior to trial and a take nothing judgment on all remaining claims following trial.{{ FIELD }}Katrina is a trial lawyer and litigator with a passion for bet-the-business complex commercial, class action, intellectual property, and qui tam disputes. She is known for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. \nKatrina brings extensive experience across a broad spectrum of commercial disputes, including class action defense, fraud, breach of contract, non-compete and non-solicitation, partnership disputes, business torts, unfair competition, patent and trademark infringement, whistleblowing, and securities fraud. This breadth of experience allows her to approach each matter with efficiency, clarity, and strategic precision. Katrina understands that true success extends beyond legal victories—winning means aligning litigation strategy with her client’s overarching business objectives.\nKatrina’s experience representing direct‑selling organizations is particularly notable. She was recognized by Texas Lawyer as a “Trailblazer” for her work defending direct‑selling companies in high‑stakes, bet‑the‑business disputes. On the litigation front, she has successfully defended dozens of direct‑selling companies in class actions and downline‑raiding cases.\nHer work in this space extends well beyond litigation. Katrina is frequently called upon to defend direct‑selling and other companies facing Federal Trade Commission and state regulatory investigations, advise on regulatory compliance, and guide clients through high‑profile publicity crises. In each instance, she helps clients navigate risk decisively while protecting both their legal position and their brand. Partner “Up and Coming Practitioner” - General Commercial Litigation Chambers USA, 2024–2025 “500 X – The Next Generation”- Complex Commercial Litigation Lawdragon, 2024–2025 “Under 40 Hot List”  Benchmark Litigation, 2020–2023 “Future Star”  Benchmark Litigation, 2021–2026 Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026 Intellectual Property Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2026 Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023 “Women in Business” List Dallas Business Journal, 2023 “40 \u0026amp; Under”  Benchmark Litigation US, 2020–2023 “Future Star” Benchmark Litigation US, 2026 “Super Lawyers Rising Stars” Texas Monthly Magazine, 2018–2019, 2021, and 2023 “Up-and-Coming 50: Women Texas Rising Stars”  Texas Monthly Magazine, 2023 “Texas Trailblazer” Texas Lawyers, 2019 Named to “20 Under 40” List Park Cities People, 2019 Professional Excellence Honors “On the Rise” Texas Lawyers, 2019 Order of the Coif SMU Deadman School of Law University of North Texas  Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law Texas Lifetime Fellow, Dallas Bar Association Member, Board of Directors, Park Cities Republican Women (2024-2026) Law Clerk, Hon. Chad Everingham, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Obtained dismissal of class claims for multi-level marketing organization in bet-the-company class action after successfully compelling arbitration and enforcement of class-action waiver. Representing multiple multi-level marketing organizations in bet-the-company class action litigation involving pyramid scheme allegations under RICO and federal securities laws. Advising numerous multi-level marketing organizations regarding amendments to their governing documents and contracts with independent contractors. Represented Fortune 100 computer company against patent infringement claims and obtained dismissal of the claims following numerous dispositive and favorable Markman. Represented Fortune 100 computer company against patent infringement claims and after exposing legal flaws in the plaintiff’s case, obtained favorable settlement for my client. Representing relators in qui tam action alleging violations of both federal and state false claims prevention acts related to a clinical laboratory testing conspiracy carried out by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings. Defended loyalty rewards corporation from a hostile takeover of its board of directors by obtaining an injunction preventing the expansion of the board of directors. Decision affirmed by the Texas Court of Appeals. Represented large steel fabrication company in bet-the-company suit against competitor. Obtained early injunction against competitor restraining the competitor’s theft and unlawful use of trade secrets. After litigating for two years, obtained successful settlement for client on eve of trial. Represented private equity fund in case alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation when portfolio company defaulted on certain debts. Obtained dismissal of all claims against fund totaling more than US$7M. Representing a portfolio of oil and gas companies against wrongful termination and breach of contract allegations. Represented a group of vascular surgeons against wrongful termination claims and obtained dismissal of numerous claims and defendants prior to trial and a take nothing judgment on all remaining claims following trial.","searchable_name":"Katrina G. Eash","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445136,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7291,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJacob Ebin advises clients on copyright, antitrust and other complex litigation matters. Jacob has represented public and private companies in a range of industries, with a particular concentration in the music industry. Jacob has worked on numerous high-profile disputes that have shaped music rate-setting law, for both new media and traditional media companies. Jacob has particular expertise before the ASCAP and BMI rate courts as well as before the Copyright Royalty Board, where he has tried four separate cases. Jacob also advises clients in connection with intellectual property licensing. Jacob has also been actively involved in representing clients before the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office as part of their recurring reviews of the music licensing landscape.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJacob was formerly an analyst and manager at Lexecon, Inc. (now Compass Lexecon), one of the premier economic consulting firms. While there, he advised clients on antitrust and intellectual property disputes, with a focus on the music and energy industries.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jacob-ebin","email":"jebin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMusic Licensing Trial Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Spotify USA, Inc. in the successful appeal of a Copyright Royalty Board decision setting rates and terms for \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers as well as the resulting remand proceeding. (\u003cem\u003eJohnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sirius XM in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board in a litigation over appropriate royalty rates and terms for Sirius XM\u0026rsquo;s public performance of sound recordings. (\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Transmission of Sound Recordings by Satellite Radio and \u0026ldquo;Preexisting\u0026rdquo; Subscription Services\u003c/em\u003e (SDARS III)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Pandora in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board to set rates for so-called \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers. (\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords\u003c/em\u003e (Phonorecords III)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of Pandora, secured highly favorable sound recording performance royalty rates for the 2016-2020 license period following a six-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Ephemeral Recording and Webcasting Digital Performance of Sound Recordings\u003c/em\u003e (Web IV)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sirius XM in a royalty-rate setting victory following 19 days of trial in federal rate-setting litigation before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services\u003c/em\u003e (SDARS II)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented background music service DMX, Inc. in a precedent-setting trial victory in the BMI Rate Court establishing rates and terms for the first ever BMI \u0026ldquo;Adjustable-Fee Blanket License\u0026rdquo;; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eBroadcast Music, Inc. v. DMX, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eComplete trial victory for background music service DMX, Inc. in the ASCAP rate court establishing rates and terms for the first ever ASCAP \u0026ldquo;Adjustable Fee Blanket License\u0026rdquo;; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eUnited States v. ASCAP (In the Matter of DMX, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional Music Licensing Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in ASCAP license fee negotiations, recently securing a significant industry-wide license fee decrease without need to turn to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the Digital Licensee Coordinator in the first ever \u0026ldquo;administrative assessment\u0026rdquo; proceeding to set the budget for the Mechanical License Collective.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in SESAC license fee negotiations and arbitration in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for SESAC licenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (\u003cem\u003eIn Re Petition of Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises, et. al.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (\u003cem\u003eWPIX, Inc. et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (\u003cem\u003eIn Re Application of the Cromwell Group, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (\u003cem\u003eWithers Broadcasting Co., et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a group of local television stations as plaintiffs in a putative class action against SESAC alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (\u003cem\u003eMeredith Corporation, et al. v. SESAC LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e, (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). Resulted in a very favorable industry-wide settlement that provided $42.5 million in refunds to the stations and placed various restrictions on SESAC\u0026rsquo;s dealings with local television stations for a 20-year period.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional Significant Litigation Experience:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Pandora Media in a group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora\u0026rsquo;s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license the underlying jokes from the sound recordings in which those jokes are embodied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major pharmaceutical company in antitrust litigation alleging that a competitor foreclosed its product from the market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major consumer products retailer in litigation brought by the Federal Trade Commission attempting to block its proposed merger.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Ebin","nick_name":"Jacob","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jacob","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":722,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Top Music Lawyer”","detail":"Billboard Magazine"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJacob Ebin advises clients on copyright, antitrust and other complex litigation matters. Jacob has represented public and private companies in a range of industries, with a particular concentration in the music industry. Jacob has worked on numerous high-profile disputes that have shaped music rate-setting law, for both new media and traditional media companies. Jacob has particular expertise before the ASCAP and BMI rate courts as well as before the Copyright Royalty Board, where he has tried four separate cases. Jacob also advises clients in connection with intellectual property licensing. Jacob has also been actively involved in representing clients before the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office as part of their recurring reviews of the music licensing landscape.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJacob was formerly an analyst and manager at Lexecon, Inc. (now Compass Lexecon), one of the premier economic consulting firms. While there, he advised clients on antitrust and intellectual property disputes, with a focus on the music and energy industries.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMusic Licensing Trial Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Spotify USA, Inc. in the successful appeal of a Copyright Royalty Board decision setting rates and terms for \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers as well as the resulting remand proceeding. (\u003cem\u003eJohnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sirius XM in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board in a litigation over appropriate royalty rates and terms for Sirius XM\u0026rsquo;s public performance of sound recordings. (\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Transmission of Sound Recordings by Satellite Radio and \u0026ldquo;Preexisting\u0026rdquo; Subscription Services\u003c/em\u003e (SDARS III)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Pandora in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board to set rates for so-called \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers. (\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords\u003c/em\u003e (Phonorecords III)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of Pandora, secured highly favorable sound recording performance royalty rates for the 2016-2020 license period following a six-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Ephemeral Recording and Webcasting Digital Performance of Sound Recordings\u003c/em\u003e (Web IV)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sirius XM in a royalty-rate setting victory following 19 days of trial in federal rate-setting litigation before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services\u003c/em\u003e (SDARS II)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented background music service DMX, Inc. in a precedent-setting trial victory in the BMI Rate Court establishing rates and terms for the first ever BMI \u0026ldquo;Adjustable-Fee Blanket License\u0026rdquo;; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eBroadcast Music, Inc. v. DMX, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eComplete trial victory for background music service DMX, Inc. in the ASCAP rate court establishing rates and terms for the first ever ASCAP \u0026ldquo;Adjustable Fee Blanket License\u0026rdquo;; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eUnited States v. ASCAP (In the Matter of DMX, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional Music Licensing Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in ASCAP license fee negotiations, recently securing a significant industry-wide license fee decrease without need to turn to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the Digital Licensee Coordinator in the first ever \u0026ldquo;administrative assessment\u0026rdquo; proceeding to set the budget for the Mechanical License Collective.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in SESAC license fee negotiations and arbitration in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for SESAC licenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (\u003cem\u003eIn Re Petition of Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises, et. al.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (\u003cem\u003eWPIX, Inc. et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (\u003cem\u003eIn Re Application of the Cromwell Group, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (\u003cem\u003eWithers Broadcasting Co., et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a group of local television stations as plaintiffs in a putative class action against SESAC alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (\u003cem\u003eMeredith Corporation, et al. v. SESAC LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e, (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). Resulted in a very favorable industry-wide settlement that provided $42.5 million in refunds to the stations and placed various restrictions on SESAC\u0026rsquo;s dealings with local television stations for a 20-year period.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional Significant Litigation Experience:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Pandora Media in a group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora\u0026rsquo;s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license the underlying jokes from the sound recordings in which those jokes are embodied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major pharmaceutical company in antitrust litigation alleging that a competitor foreclosed its product from the market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major consumer products retailer in litigation brought by the Federal Trade Commission attempting to block its proposed merger.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Top Music Lawyer”","detail":"Billboard Magazine"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13302}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-20T22:04:00.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-20T22:04:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Ebin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top Music Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Billboard Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}Music Licensing Trial Experience\nRepresented Spotify USA, Inc. in the successful appeal of a Copyright Royalty Board decision setting rates and terms for “mechanical” rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers as well as the resulting remand proceeding. (Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board).{{ FIELD }}Represented Sirius XM in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board in a litigation over appropriate royalty rates and terms for Sirius XM’s public performance of sound recordings. (In re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Transmission of Sound Recordings by Satellite Radio and “Preexisting” Subscription Services (SDARS III)).{{ FIELD }}Represented Pandora in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board to set rates for so-called “mechanical” rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers. (In re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords (Phonorecords III)).{{ FIELD }}On behalf of Pandora, secured highly favorable sound recording performance royalty rates for the 2016-2020 license period following a six-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (In the Matter of Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Ephemeral Recording and Webcasting Digital Performance of Sound Recordings (Web IV)).{{ FIELD }}Represented Sirius XM in a royalty-rate setting victory following 19 days of trial in federal rate-setting litigation before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (In the Matter of Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services (SDARS II)).{{ FIELD }}Represented background music service DMX, Inc. in a precedent-setting trial victory in the BMI Rate Court establishing rates and terms for the first ever BMI “Adjustable-Fee Blanket License”; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (Broadcast Music, Inc. v. DMX, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Complete trial victory for background music service DMX, Inc. in the ASCAP rate court establishing rates and terms for the first ever ASCAP “Adjustable Fee Blanket License”; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (United States v. ASCAP (In the Matter of DMX, Inc.)).{{ FIELD }}Additional Music Licensing Experience\nRepresented the commercial local television industry in ASCAP license fee negotiations, recently securing a significant industry-wide license fee decrease without need to turn to litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented the Digital Licensee Coordinator in the first ever “administrative assessment” proceeding to set the budget for the Mechanical License Collective.{{ FIELD }}Represented the commercial local television industry in SESAC license fee negotiations and arbitration in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for SESAC licenses.{{ FIELD }}Represented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (In Re Petition of Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises, et. al.).{{ FIELD }}Represented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (WPIX, Inc. et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Represented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (In Re Application of the Cromwell Group, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Represented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (Withers Broadcasting Co., et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a group of local television stations as plaintiffs in a putative class action against SESAC alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (Meredith Corporation, et al. v. SESAC LLC, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). Resulted in a very favorable industry-wide settlement that provided $42.5 million in refunds to the stations and placed various restrictions on SESAC’s dealings with local television stations for a 20-year period.{{ FIELD }}Additional Significant Litigation Experience:\nRepresenting Pandora Media in a group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora’s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license the underlying jokes from the sound recordings in which those jokes are embodied.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major pharmaceutical company in antitrust litigation alleging that a competitor foreclosed its product from the market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major consumer products retailer in litigation brought by the Federal Trade Commission attempting to block its proposed merger.{{ FIELD }}Jacob Ebin advises clients on copyright, antitrust and other complex litigation matters. Jacob has represented public and private companies in a range of industries, with a particular concentration in the music industry. Jacob has worked on numerous high-profile disputes that have shaped music rate-setting law, for both new media and traditional media companies. Jacob has particular expertise before the ASCAP and BMI rate courts as well as before the Copyright Royalty Board, where he has tried four separate cases. Jacob also advises clients in connection with intellectual property licensing. Jacob has also been actively involved in representing clients before the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office as part of their recurring reviews of the music licensing landscape.\nJacob was formerly an analyst and manager at Lexecon, Inc. (now Compass Lexecon), one of the premier economic consulting firms. While there, he advised clients on antitrust and intellectual property disputes, with a focus on the music and energy industries. Partner “Top Music Lawyer” Billboard Magazine Brandeis University  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Massachusetts New York Music Licensing Trial Experience\nRepresented Spotify USA, Inc. in the successful appeal of a Copyright Royalty Board decision setting rates and terms for “mechanical” rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers as well as the resulting remand proceeding. (Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board). Represented Sirius XM in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board in a litigation over appropriate royalty rates and terms for Sirius XM’s public performance of sound recordings. (In re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Transmission of Sound Recordings by Satellite Radio and “Preexisting” Subscription Services (SDARS III)). Represented Pandora in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board to set rates for so-called “mechanical” rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers. (In re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords (Phonorecords III)). On behalf of Pandora, secured highly favorable sound recording performance royalty rates for the 2016-2020 license period following a six-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (In the Matter of Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Ephemeral Recording and Webcasting Digital Performance of Sound Recordings (Web IV)). Represented Sirius XM in a royalty-rate setting victory following 19 days of trial in federal rate-setting litigation before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (In the Matter of Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services (SDARS II)). Represented background music service DMX, Inc. in a precedent-setting trial victory in the BMI Rate Court establishing rates and terms for the first ever BMI “Adjustable-Fee Blanket License”; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (Broadcast Music, Inc. v. DMX, Inc.). Complete trial victory for background music service DMX, Inc. in the ASCAP rate court establishing rates and terms for the first ever ASCAP “Adjustable Fee Blanket License”; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (United States v. ASCAP (In the Matter of DMX, Inc.)). Additional Music Licensing Experience\nRepresented the commercial local television industry in ASCAP license fee negotiations, recently securing a significant industry-wide license fee decrease without need to turn to litigation. Represented the Digital Licensee Coordinator in the first ever “administrative assessment” proceeding to set the budget for the Mechanical License Collective. Represented the commercial local television industry in SESAC license fee negotiations and arbitration in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for SESAC licenses. Represented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (In Re Petition of Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises, et. al.). Represented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (WPIX, Inc. et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.). Represented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (In Re Application of the Cromwell Group, Inc.). Represented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (Withers Broadcasting Co., et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.). Successfully represented a group of local television stations as plaintiffs in a putative class action against SESAC alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (Meredith Corporation, et al. v. SESAC LLC, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). Resulted in a very favorable industry-wide settlement that provided $42.5 million in refunds to the stations and placed various restrictions on SESAC’s dealings with local television stations for a 20-year period. Additional Significant Litigation Experience:\nRepresenting Pandora Media in a group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora’s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license the underlying jokes from the sound recordings in which those jokes are embodied. Represented a major pharmaceutical company in antitrust litigation alleging that a competitor foreclosed its product from the market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Represented a major consumer products retailer in litigation brought by the Federal Trade Commission attempting to block its proposed merger.","searchable_name":"Jacob Ebin","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444688,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6090,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Eby is a legal issues and trial lawyer who defends pharmaceutical companies, consumer product manufacturers, and automotive clients in personal injury and class action cases in federal and state courts across the country.\u0026nbsp; He develops novel and cross-cutting legal arguments that eliminate or reduce his clients' exposure, persuades judges to exclude\u0026nbsp;unfavorable evidence, and conveys complex scientific concepts in terms that juries understand.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris has helped leading companies navigate products liability, consumer class action, and complex commercial cases by developing persuasive arguments on legal issues at the cutting-edge of regulation and business.\u0026nbsp; Chris also devises discovery strategies to position\u0026nbsp;mass tort cases for favorable outcomes--from dismissal to\u0026nbsp;defense verdicts--and executes on those strategies by taking and defending depositions of key fact and expert witnesses.\u0026nbsp; Chris briefs and orally argues dispositive and expert-directed motions and, at trial, frequently runs point on all legal issues, including jury instructions.\u0026nbsp; Finally, Chris\u0026nbsp;excels at presenting his clients' cases to juries, often relating some of the most technical medical and scientific evidence at issue in terms that resonate with jurors.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris maintains an active pro bono practice, particularly in federal immigration court.\u0026nbsp; He\u0026nbsp;has secured asylum for persecuted individuals from Russia, Eritrea, Mexico, and Venezuela\u0026mdash;in each case persuading an\u0026nbsp;immigration judge, after extended briefing and a merits hearing,\u0026nbsp;to release the asylee from detention\u0026nbsp;and grant deportation relief.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Chris has also focused his pro bono efforts on appellate advocacy, drafting numerous public interest \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae \u003c/em\u003ebriefs and representing indigent clients on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, state courts of appeals, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and more. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"christopher-eby","email":"ceby@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBoehringer Ingelheim\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal and state court litigation alleging that the active ingredient in Zantac heartburn medication degrades into a nitrosamine that can cause cancer. Served as the lead trial associate in five and third-chair trial lawyer in three of the nine Zantac trials to date nationwide--none of which has resulted in a plaintiff verdict.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eValadez v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2023-L-000483, 2024 WL 3595669 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. May 23, 2024) (defense verdict);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGross v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2023-L000469 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill.) (hung jury);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRussell v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. RG20061561 (Super. Ct. Alameda Cnty., Cal.) (hung jury);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCaston v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2023-L-1332 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. July 8, 2025) (defense verdict);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLee v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2023-L-1380 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. Nov. 25, 2025) (defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting internet service provider\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEarthLink\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in commercial litigation for breach of contract and business torts, and part of team that won a case-defining sanctions ruling, award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, and adverse inference due to adversary's spoliation of evidence.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee EarthLink LLC v. Charter Communications\u003c/em\u003e, No. 0654332/2020 (N.Y. Supr. Ct.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead associate for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePierre Fabre\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful defense of nationwide class action alleging that the company\u0026rsquo;s dry shampoo products contained benzene.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee Bojko v. Pierre Fabre USA Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023 WL 4204663 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJohnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEstee Lauder\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as expert-focused national coordinating counsel in more than a dozen cases alleging that asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talc causes mesothelioma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead attorney on brief of several\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eamici curiae\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ein support of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetChoice\u003c/strong\u003e's\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003esuccessful motion for preliminary injunction against enforcement of California's Age-Appropriate Design Code.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta\u003c/em\u003e, No. 5:22-cv-8861, Dkt. 42 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead associate representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCady Studios\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful denial of temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction brought by competitor alleging restrictive covenant violations based on Cady's employment of competitor's former executives.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee American Achievement Corp. v. Fitzgerald\u003c/em\u003e, No. 23-cv-3139, Dkt. 29 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMine Safety Appliances\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in long-running litigation by West Virginia Attorney General to recover public health care expenditures related to pneumoconiosis alleged to have resulted from personal protective equipment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJohnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-district litigation concerning allegations that long-term use of the interstitial cystitis drug Elmiron causes serious vision problems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eVillage of Deerfield\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Illinois appellate court against gun rights group's constitutional challenge to municipal ordinance banning assault weapons. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's refusal to enjoin the ordinance.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee Easterday v. Village of Deerfield\u003c/em\u003e, 176 N.E.3d 187 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSonova AG\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Phonak\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein Lanham Act litigation against competing audiology and hearing aid companies' unauthorized commercial use of intellectual property, resulting in entry of a consent judgment and permanent injunction against further infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee Sonova AG et al. v. Hearsite Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-cv-6715, Dkt. 77 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMission Measurement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein litigation alleging that software developer misappropriated confidential information relating to philanthropic grading platform, in one of the first cases filed under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee Mission Measurement Corp. v. Blackbaud, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 216 F.Supp.3d 915 (N.D. Ill. 2016).\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Eby","nick_name":"Christopher","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois","years_held":"2017 - 2017"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. D. Brooks Smith, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit","years_held":"2020 - 2021"}],"first_name":"Christopher","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2174,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude, with honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2015-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named \"One to Watch\" by Best Lawyers","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America (2026)"},{"title":"Named \"One to Watch\" by Best Lawyers","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America (2025)"},{"title":"Named \"One to Watch\" by Best Lawyers","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America (2024)"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Eby is a legal issues and trial lawyer who defends pharmaceutical companies, consumer product manufacturers, and automotive clients in personal injury and class action cases in federal and state courts across the country.\u0026nbsp; He develops novel and cross-cutting legal arguments that eliminate or reduce his clients' exposure, persuades judges to exclude\u0026nbsp;unfavorable evidence, and conveys complex scientific concepts in terms that juries understand.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris has helped leading companies navigate products liability, consumer class action, and complex commercial cases by developing persuasive arguments on legal issues at the cutting-edge of regulation and business.\u0026nbsp; Chris also devises discovery strategies to position\u0026nbsp;mass tort cases for favorable outcomes--from dismissal to\u0026nbsp;defense verdicts--and executes on those strategies by taking and defending depositions of key fact and expert witnesses.\u0026nbsp; Chris briefs and orally argues dispositive and expert-directed motions and, at trial, frequently runs point on all legal issues, including jury instructions.\u0026nbsp; Finally, Chris\u0026nbsp;excels at presenting his clients' cases to juries, often relating some of the most technical medical and scientific evidence at issue in terms that resonate with jurors.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChris maintains an active pro bono practice, particularly in federal immigration court.\u0026nbsp; He\u0026nbsp;has secured asylum for persecuted individuals from Russia, Eritrea, Mexico, and Venezuela\u0026mdash;in each case persuading an\u0026nbsp;immigration judge, after extended briefing and a merits hearing,\u0026nbsp;to release the asylee from detention\u0026nbsp;and grant deportation relief.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Chris has also focused his pro bono efforts on appellate advocacy, drafting numerous public interest \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae \u003c/em\u003ebriefs and representing indigent clients on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, state courts of appeals, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and more. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBoehringer Ingelheim\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal and state court litigation alleging that the active ingredient in Zantac heartburn medication degrades into a nitrosamine that can cause cancer. Served as the lead trial associate in five and third-chair trial lawyer in three of the nine Zantac trials to date nationwide--none of which has resulted in a plaintiff verdict.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eValadez v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2023-L-000483, 2024 WL 3595669 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. May 23, 2024) (defense verdict);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGross v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2023-L000469 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill.) (hung jury);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRussell v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. RG20061561 (Super. Ct. Alameda Cnty., Cal.) (hung jury);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCaston v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2023-L-1332 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. July 8, 2025) (defense verdict);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLee v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 2023-L-1380 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. Nov. 25, 2025) (defense verdict).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting internet service provider\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEarthLink\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in commercial litigation for breach of contract and business torts, and part of team that won a case-defining sanctions ruling, award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, and adverse inference due to adversary's spoliation of evidence.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee EarthLink LLC v. Charter Communications\u003c/em\u003e, No. 0654332/2020 (N.Y. Supr. Ct.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead associate for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePierre Fabre\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful defense of nationwide class action alleging that the company\u0026rsquo;s dry shampoo products contained benzene.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee Bojko v. Pierre Fabre USA Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023 WL 4204663 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJohnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEstee Lauder\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as expert-focused national coordinating counsel in more than a dozen cases alleging that asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talc causes mesothelioma.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead attorney on brief of several\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eamici curiae\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ein support of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetChoice\u003c/strong\u003e's\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003esuccessful motion for preliminary injunction against enforcement of California's Age-Appropriate Design Code.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta\u003c/em\u003e, No. 5:22-cv-8861, Dkt. 42 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead associate representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCady Studios\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful denial of temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction brought by competitor alleging restrictive covenant violations based on Cady's employment of competitor's former executives.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee American Achievement Corp. v. Fitzgerald\u003c/em\u003e, No. 23-cv-3139, Dkt. 29 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMine Safety Appliances\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in long-running litigation by West Virginia Attorney General to recover public health care expenditures related to pneumoconiosis alleged to have resulted from personal protective equipment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJohnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-district litigation concerning allegations that long-term use of the interstitial cystitis drug Elmiron causes serious vision problems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eVillage of Deerfield\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Illinois appellate court against gun rights group's constitutional challenge to municipal ordinance banning assault weapons. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's refusal to enjoin the ordinance.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee Easterday v. Village of Deerfield\u003c/em\u003e, 176 N.E.3d 187 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSonova AG\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Phonak\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein Lanham Act litigation against competing audiology and hearing aid companies' unauthorized commercial use of intellectual property, resulting in entry of a consent judgment and permanent injunction against further infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee Sonova AG et al. v. Hearsite Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-cv-6715, Dkt. 77 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMission Measurement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein litigation alleging that software developer misappropriated confidential information relating to philanthropic grading platform, in one of the first cases filed under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSee Mission Measurement Corp. v. Blackbaud, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 216 F.Supp.3d 915 (N.D. Ill. 2016).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named \"One to Watch\" by Best Lawyers","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America (2026)"},{"title":"Named \"One to Watch\" by Best Lawyers","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America (2025)"},{"title":"Named \"One to Watch\" by Best Lawyers","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America (2024)"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9272}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-02T16:00:03.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T16:00:03.000Z","searchable_text":"Eby{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named \\\"One to Watch\\\" by Best Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America (2026)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named \\\"One to Watch\\\" by Best Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America (2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named \\\"One to Watch\\\" by Best Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America (2024)\"}{{ FIELD }}Defending Boehringer Ingelheim in federal and state court litigation alleging that the active ingredient in Zantac heartburn medication degrades into a nitrosamine that can cause cancer. Served as the lead trial associate in five and third-chair trial lawyer in three of the nine Zantac trials to date nationwide--none of which has resulted in a plaintiff verdict. See Valadez v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al., No. 2023-L-000483, 2024 WL 3595669 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. May 23, 2024) (defense verdict); Gross v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., No. 2023-L000469 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill.) (hung jury); Russell v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., No. RG20061561 (Super. Ct. Alameda Cnty., Cal.) (hung jury); Caston v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., No. 2023-L-1332 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. July 8, 2025) (defense verdict); Lee v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., No. 2023-L-1380 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. Nov. 25, 2025) (defense verdict).{{ FIELD }}Representing internet service provider EarthLink in commercial litigation for breach of contract and business torts, and part of team that won a case-defining sanctions ruling, award of attorneys’ fees, and adverse inference due to adversary's spoliation of evidence. See EarthLink LLC v. Charter Communications, No. 0654332/2020 (N.Y. Supr. Ct.).{{ FIELD }}Served as lead associate for Pierre Fabre in successful defense of nationwide class action alleging that the company’s dry shampoo products contained benzene. See Bojko v. Pierre Fabre USA Inc., 2023 WL 4204663 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2023).{{ FIELD }}Represented Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson and Estee Lauder as expert-focused national coordinating counsel in more than a dozen cases alleging that asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talc causes mesothelioma.{{ FIELD }}Lead attorney on brief of several amici curiae in support of NetChoice's successful motion for preliminary injunction against enforcement of California's Age-Appropriate Design Code. See Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 5:22-cv-8861, Dkt. 42 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2023).{{ FIELD }}Lead associate representing Cady Studios in successful denial of temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction brought by competitor alleging restrictive covenant violations based on Cady's employment of competitor's former executives. See American Achievement Corp. v. Fitzgerald, No. 23-cv-3139, Dkt. 29 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2023).{{ FIELD }}Represented Mine Safety Appliances in long-running litigation by West Virginia Attorney General to recover public health care expenditures related to pneumoconiosis alleged to have resulted from personal protective equipment.{{ FIELD }}Represented Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson in multi-district litigation concerning allegations that long-term use of the interstitial cystitis drug Elmiron causes serious vision problems.{{ FIELD }}Represented Village of Deerfield in Illinois appellate court against gun rights group's constitutional challenge to municipal ordinance banning assault weapons. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's refusal to enjoin the ordinance. See Easterday v. Village of Deerfield, 176 N.E.3d 187 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2020).{{ FIELD }}Represented Sonova AG and Phonak in Lanham Act litigation against competing audiology and hearing aid companies' unauthorized commercial use of intellectual property, resulting in entry of a consent judgment and permanent injunction against further infringement. See Sonova AG et al. v. Hearsite Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-6715, Dkt. 77 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2018).{{ FIELD }}Represented Mission Measurement in litigation alleging that software developer misappropriated confidential information relating to philanthropic grading platform, in one of the first cases filed under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. See Mission Measurement Corp. v. Blackbaud, Inc., 216 F.Supp.3d 915 (N.D. Ill. 2016).{{ FIELD }}Chris Eby is a legal issues and trial lawyer who defends pharmaceutical companies, consumer product manufacturers, and automotive clients in personal injury and class action cases in federal and state courts across the country.  He develops novel and cross-cutting legal arguments that eliminate or reduce his clients' exposure, persuades judges to exclude unfavorable evidence, and conveys complex scientific concepts in terms that juries understand. \nChris has helped leading companies navigate products liability, consumer class action, and complex commercial cases by developing persuasive arguments on legal issues at the cutting-edge of regulation and business.  Chris also devises discovery strategies to position mass tort cases for favorable outcomes--from dismissal to defense verdicts--and executes on those strategies by taking and defending depositions of key fact and expert witnesses.  Chris briefs and orally argues dispositive and expert-directed motions and, at trial, frequently runs point on all legal issues, including jury instructions.  Finally, Chris excels at presenting his clients' cases to juries, often relating some of the most technical medical and scientific evidence at issue in terms that resonate with jurors.      \nChris maintains an active pro bono practice, particularly in federal immigration court.  He has secured asylum for persecuted individuals from Russia, Eritrea, Mexico, and Venezuela—in each case persuading an immigration judge, after extended briefing and a merits hearing, to release the asylee from detention and grant deportation relief.  Chris has also focused his pro bono efforts on appellate advocacy, drafting numerous public interest amicus curiae briefs and representing indigent clients on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, state courts of appeals, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and more.   Partner Named \"One to Watch\" by Best Lawyers The Best Lawyers in America (2026) Named \"One to Watch\" by Best Lawyers The Best Lawyers in America (2025) Named \"One to Watch\" by Best Lawyers The Best Lawyers in America (2024) Georgia College \u0026amp; State University  University of Chicago University of Chicago Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Illinois Judicial Clerk, Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Judicial Clerk, Hon. D. Brooks Smith, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Defending Boehringer Ingelheim in federal and state court litigation alleging that the active ingredient in Zantac heartburn medication degrades into a nitrosamine that can cause cancer. Served as the lead trial associate in five and third-chair trial lawyer in three of the nine Zantac trials to date nationwide--none of which has resulted in a plaintiff verdict. See Valadez v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al., No. 2023-L-000483, 2024 WL 3595669 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. May 23, 2024) (defense verdict); Gross v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., No. 2023-L000469 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill.) (hung jury); Russell v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., No. RG20061561 (Super. Ct. Alameda Cnty., Cal.) (hung jury); Caston v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., No. 2023-L-1332 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. July 8, 2025) (defense verdict); Lee v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., No. 2023-L-1380 (Circ. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill. Nov. 25, 2025) (defense verdict). Representing internet service provider EarthLink in commercial litigation for breach of contract and business torts, and part of team that won a case-defining sanctions ruling, award of attorneys’ fees, and adverse inference due to adversary's spoliation of evidence. See EarthLink LLC v. Charter Communications, No. 0654332/2020 (N.Y. Supr. Ct.). Served as lead associate for Pierre Fabre in successful defense of nationwide class action alleging that the company’s dry shampoo products contained benzene. See Bojko v. Pierre Fabre USA Inc., 2023 WL 4204663 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 2023). Represented Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson and Estee Lauder as expert-focused national coordinating counsel in more than a dozen cases alleging that asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talc causes mesothelioma. Lead attorney on brief of several amici curiae in support of NetChoice's successful motion for preliminary injunction against enforcement of California's Age-Appropriate Design Code. See Netchoice, LLC v. Bonta, No. 5:22-cv-8861, Dkt. 42 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2023). Lead associate representing Cady Studios in successful denial of temporary restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction brought by competitor alleging restrictive covenant violations based on Cady's employment of competitor's former executives. See American Achievement Corp. v. Fitzgerald, No. 23-cv-3139, Dkt. 29 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2023). Represented Mine Safety Appliances in long-running litigation by West Virginia Attorney General to recover public health care expenditures related to pneumoconiosis alleged to have resulted from personal protective equipment. Represented Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson in multi-district litigation concerning allegations that long-term use of the interstitial cystitis drug Elmiron causes serious vision problems. Represented Village of Deerfield in Illinois appellate court against gun rights group's constitutional challenge to municipal ordinance banning assault weapons. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's refusal to enjoin the ordinance. See Easterday v. Village of Deerfield, 176 N.E.3d 187 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2020). Represented Sonova AG and Phonak in Lanham Act litigation against competing audiology and hearing aid companies' unauthorized commercial use of intellectual property, resulting in entry of a consent judgment and permanent injunction against further infringement. See Sonova AG et al. v. Hearsite Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-6715, Dkt. 77 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2018). Represented Mission Measurement in litigation alleging that software developer misappropriated confidential information relating to philanthropic grading platform, in one of the first cases filed under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. See Mission Measurement Corp. v. Blackbaud, Inc., 216 F.Supp.3d 915 (N.D. Ill. 2016).","searchable_name":"Christopher P. Eby","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":442515,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6872,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoss Elfand is a seasoned antitrust trial lawyer who has served as lead and co-lead counsel in high profile matters on behalf of\u0026nbsp; pharmaceutical and technology companies. He has extensive experience as\u0026nbsp;the lead advocate before competition enforcement agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general offices, and other agencies around the world.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoss often serves as lead counsel in large-scale, complex, and high-risk matters, including multi-district cartel and monopolization cases in the United States. He is a skilled litigator of claims involving the interplay between intellectual property and antitrust laws in the pharmaceutical industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoss is a trusted legal advisor on antitrust risks associated with product development, contracting, marketing, joint ventures, and patent-related issues. He also advises companies in the technology industry regarding the intersection of global privacy and competition laws.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ross-elfand","email":"relfand@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonopolization\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGraco v. Carlisle\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026ndash; Successfully represented Graco as one of the lead attorneys in an eight-day jury trial, securing a first-of-its kind jury verdict in Graco\u0026rsquo;s favor rejecting the fraud and antitrust\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Process\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecounterclaims entirely and allowing Graco to avoid damages and attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLive Sports Betting Patent and Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff as one of the lead\u0026nbsp;antitrust lawyers in litigation against sports betting streaming technology companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRegeneron v. Novartis\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Novartis as co-lead counsel in antitrust litigation involving Walker Process monopolization claims relating to a patent covering syringes prefilled with an anti-VEGF drug that treats ophthalmic conditions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRebate Wall Biosimilar Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Pfizer as co-lead counsel in ground-breaking antitrust litigation regarding the impact of contracting and rebating practices on biosimilars.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Boehringer lngelheim as co-lead counsel in class action multidistrict litigation arising from alleged delay in generic competition to Aggrenox, due to a claimed \u0026ldquo;reverse payment\u0026rdquo; patent settlement and obtained appellate victory in challenge to class action settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Loestrin Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Warner Chilcott in class action litigation challenging the company\u0026rsquo;s settlements of patent litigation relating to the oral contraceptive Loestrin.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCartel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNuclear Power Generation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eCo-lead antitrust lawyer for a defendant in an antitrust class action accusing the nuclear power generation industry of colluding to suppress employee wages and share competitively sensitive compensation information.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a group of more than a dozen large healthcare providers who opted out of a $2 billion class settlement and brought their own direct antitrust litigation against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its 33 member companies, alleging that the Blues violated the antitrust laws by allocating markets through exclusive service areas and fixing prices paid to healthcare providers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented CertainTeed Gypsum in the homebuilders' opt-out antitrust litigation alleging price fixing among producers of drywall products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Toshiba in civil cases involving allegations of price-fixing of LCD panels, including two class actions and numerous opt-out cases. After a six-week trial where the Plaintiff alleged damages of over $2 billion, the jury unanimously found no liability against Toshiba. In an earlier six-week trial, the jury found no recoverable damages against Toshiba where the Plaintiffs alleged class-wide damages of nearly $3 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState Attorneys General TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation \u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eDefended Toshiba as the lead for the defense group in three separate state antitrust actions filed by state attorneys general in Mississippi, Washington, and Illinois.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFair Isaac Corporation v. Equifax, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in an action brought by FICO, the dominant provider of consumer credit risk scoring services, against the three major U.S. credit bureaus alleging collusion and trademark violations in the sale of credit scoring services, securing summary judgment on the antitrust claims and a jury verdict on the trademark claims. The jury also found that FICO committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring registration of the trademark. Secured affirmation of both the antitrust dismissal and the jury's verdict on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented technology companies as global counsel in competition investigations by enforcement agencies in the United States, Europe, India, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and numerous other jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Elfand","nick_name":"Ross","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","years_held":"2005 - 2006"}],"first_name":"Ross","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2705,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2005-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/ross-elfand/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoss Elfand is a seasoned antitrust trial lawyer who has served as lead and co-lead counsel in high profile matters on behalf of\u0026nbsp; pharmaceutical and technology companies. He has extensive experience as\u0026nbsp;the lead advocate before competition enforcement agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general offices, and other agencies around the world.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoss often serves as lead counsel in large-scale, complex, and high-risk matters, including multi-district cartel and monopolization cases in the United States. He is a skilled litigator of claims involving the interplay between intellectual property and antitrust laws in the pharmaceutical industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoss is a trusted legal advisor on antitrust risks associated with product development, contracting, marketing, joint ventures, and patent-related issues. He also advises companies in the technology industry regarding the intersection of global privacy and competition laws.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonopolization\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGraco v. Carlisle\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026ndash; Successfully represented Graco as one of the lead attorneys in an eight-day jury trial, securing a first-of-its kind jury verdict in Graco\u0026rsquo;s favor rejecting the fraud and antitrust\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Process\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecounterclaims entirely and allowing Graco to avoid damages and attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLive Sports Betting Patent and Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff as one of the lead\u0026nbsp;antitrust lawyers in litigation against sports betting streaming technology companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRegeneron v. Novartis\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Novartis as co-lead counsel in antitrust litigation involving Walker Process monopolization claims relating to a patent covering syringes prefilled with an anti-VEGF drug that treats ophthalmic conditions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRebate Wall Biosimilar Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Pfizer as co-lead counsel in ground-breaking antitrust litigation regarding the impact of contracting and rebating practices on biosimilars.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Boehringer lngelheim as co-lead counsel in class action multidistrict litigation arising from alleged delay in generic competition to Aggrenox, due to a claimed \u0026ldquo;reverse payment\u0026rdquo; patent settlement and obtained appellate victory in challenge to class action settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Loestrin Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Warner Chilcott in class action litigation challenging the company\u0026rsquo;s settlements of patent litigation relating to the oral contraceptive Loestrin.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCartel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNuclear Power Generation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eCo-lead antitrust lawyer for a defendant in an antitrust class action accusing the nuclear power generation industry of colluding to suppress employee wages and share competitively sensitive compensation information.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a group of more than a dozen large healthcare providers who opted out of a $2 billion class settlement and brought their own direct antitrust litigation against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its 33 member companies, alleging that the Blues violated the antitrust laws by allocating markets through exclusive service areas and fixing prices paid to healthcare providers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented CertainTeed Gypsum in the homebuilders' opt-out antitrust litigation alleging price fixing among producers of drywall products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Toshiba in civil cases involving allegations of price-fixing of LCD panels, including two class actions and numerous opt-out cases. After a six-week trial where the Plaintiff alleged damages of over $2 billion, the jury unanimously found no liability against Toshiba. In an earlier six-week trial, the jury found no recoverable damages against Toshiba where the Plaintiffs alleged class-wide damages of nearly $3 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState Attorneys General TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation \u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eDefended Toshiba as the lead for the defense group in three separate state antitrust actions filed by state attorneys general in Mississippi, Washington, and Illinois.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFair Isaac Corporation v. Equifax, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in an action brought by FICO, the dominant provider of consumer credit risk scoring services, against the three major U.S. credit bureaus alleging collusion and trademark violations in the sale of credit scoring services, securing summary judgment on the antitrust claims and a jury verdict on the trademark claims. The jury also found that FICO committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring registration of the trademark. Secured affirmation of both the antitrust dismissal and the jury's verdict on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented technology companies as global counsel in competition investigations by enforcement agencies in the United States, Europe, India, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and numerous other jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12192}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-06T17:47:42.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-06T17:47:42.000Z","searchable_text":"Elfand{{ FIELD }}Monopolization{{ FIELD }}Graco v. Carlisle – Successfully represented Graco as one of the lead attorneys in an eight-day jury trial, securing a first-of-its kind jury verdict in Graco’s favor rejecting the fraud and antitrust Walker Process counterclaims entirely and allowing Graco to avoid damages and attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Live Sports Betting Patent and Antitrust Litigation – Represented the plaintiff as one of the lead antitrust lawyers in litigation against sports betting streaming technology companies.{{ FIELD }}Regeneron v. Novartis – Represented Novartis as co-lead counsel in antitrust litigation involving Walker Process monopolization claims relating to a patent covering syringes prefilled with an anti-VEGF drug that treats ophthalmic conditions.{{ FIELD }}Rebate Wall Biosimilar Litigation – Represented Pfizer as co-lead counsel in ground-breaking antitrust litigation regarding the impact of contracting and rebating practices on biosimilars.{{ FIELD }}In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation – Represented Boehringer lngelheim as co-lead counsel in class action multidistrict litigation arising from alleged delay in generic competition to Aggrenox, due to a claimed “reverse payment” patent settlement and obtained appellate victory in challenge to class action settlements.{{ FIELD }}In re Loestrin Antitrust Litigation – Represented Warner Chilcott in class action litigation challenging the company’s settlements of patent litigation relating to the oral contraceptive Loestrin.{{ FIELD }}Cartel{{ FIELD }}Nuclear Power Generation Antitrust Litigation – Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a defendant in an antitrust class action accusing the nuclear power generation industry of colluding to suppress employee wages and share competitively sensitive compensation information.{{ FIELD }}In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig. – Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a group of more than a dozen large healthcare providers who opted out of a $2 billion class settlement and brought their own direct antitrust litigation against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its 33 member companies, alleging that the Blues violated the antitrust laws by allocating markets through exclusive service areas and fixing prices paid to healthcare providers.{{ FIELD }}In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation – Represented CertainTeed Gypsum in the homebuilders' opt-out antitrust litigation alleging price fixing among producers of drywall products.{{ FIELD }}In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation – Represented Toshiba in civil cases involving allegations of price-fixing of LCD panels, including two class actions and numerous opt-out cases. After a six-week trial where the Plaintiff alleged damages of over $2 billion, the jury unanimously found no liability against Toshiba. In an earlier six-week trial, the jury found no recoverable damages against Toshiba where the Plaintiffs alleged class-wide damages of nearly $3 billion.{{ FIELD }}State Attorneys General TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation – Defended Toshiba as the lead for the defense group in three separate state antitrust actions filed by state attorneys general in Mississippi, Washington, and Illinois.{{ FIELD }}Fair Isaac Corporation v. Equifax, et al. – Represented Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in an action brought by FICO, the dominant provider of consumer credit risk scoring services, against the three major U.S. credit bureaus alleging collusion and trademark violations in the sale of credit scoring services, securing summary judgment on the antitrust claims and a jury verdict on the trademark claims. The jury also found that FICO committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring registration of the trademark. Secured affirmation of both the antitrust dismissal and the jury's verdict on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.{{ FIELD }}Global Investigations{{ FIELD }}Represented technology companies as global counsel in competition investigations by enforcement agencies in the United States, Europe, India, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and numerous other jurisdictions.{{ FIELD }}Ross Elfand is a seasoned antitrust trial lawyer who has served as lead and co-lead counsel in high profile matters on behalf of  pharmaceutical and technology companies. He has extensive experience as the lead advocate before competition enforcement agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general offices, and other agencies around the world. \nRoss often serves as lead counsel in large-scale, complex, and high-risk matters, including multi-district cartel and monopolization cases in the United States. He is a skilled litigator of claims involving the interplay between intellectual property and antitrust laws in the pharmaceutical industry.\nRoss is a trusted legal advisor on antitrust risks associated with product development, contracting, marketing, joint ventures, and patent-related issues. He also advises companies in the technology industry regarding the intersection of global privacy and competition laws. Partner Emory University Emory University School of Law Brooklyn Law School Brooklyn Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New Jersey New York Law Clerk, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Monopolization Graco v. Carlisle – Successfully represented Graco as one of the lead attorneys in an eight-day jury trial, securing a first-of-its kind jury verdict in Graco’s favor rejecting the fraud and antitrust Walker Process counterclaims entirely and allowing Graco to avoid damages and attorneys’ fees. Live Sports Betting Patent and Antitrust Litigation – Represented the plaintiff as one of the lead antitrust lawyers in litigation against sports betting streaming technology companies. Regeneron v. Novartis – Represented Novartis as co-lead counsel in antitrust litigation involving Walker Process monopolization claims relating to a patent covering syringes prefilled with an anti-VEGF drug that treats ophthalmic conditions. Rebate Wall Biosimilar Litigation – Represented Pfizer as co-lead counsel in ground-breaking antitrust litigation regarding the impact of contracting and rebating practices on biosimilars. In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation – Represented Boehringer lngelheim as co-lead counsel in class action multidistrict litigation arising from alleged delay in generic competition to Aggrenox, due to a claimed “reverse payment” patent settlement and obtained appellate victory in challenge to class action settlements. In re Loestrin Antitrust Litigation – Represented Warner Chilcott in class action litigation challenging the company’s settlements of patent litigation relating to the oral contraceptive Loestrin. Cartel Nuclear Power Generation Antitrust Litigation – Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a defendant in an antitrust class action accusing the nuclear power generation industry of colluding to suppress employee wages and share competitively sensitive compensation information. In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig. – Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a group of more than a dozen large healthcare providers who opted out of a $2 billion class settlement and brought their own direct antitrust litigation against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its 33 member companies, alleging that the Blues violated the antitrust laws by allocating markets through exclusive service areas and fixing prices paid to healthcare providers. In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation – Represented CertainTeed Gypsum in the homebuilders' opt-out antitrust litigation alleging price fixing among producers of drywall products. In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation – Represented Toshiba in civil cases involving allegations of price-fixing of LCD panels, including two class actions and numerous opt-out cases. After a six-week trial where the Plaintiff alleged damages of over $2 billion, the jury unanimously found no liability against Toshiba. In an earlier six-week trial, the jury found no recoverable damages against Toshiba where the Plaintiffs alleged class-wide damages of nearly $3 billion. State Attorneys General TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation – Defended Toshiba as the lead for the defense group in three separate state antitrust actions filed by state attorneys general in Mississippi, Washington, and Illinois. Fair Isaac Corporation v. Equifax, et al. – Represented Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in an action brought by FICO, the dominant provider of consumer credit risk scoring services, against the three major U.S. credit bureaus alleging collusion and trademark violations in the sale of credit scoring services, securing summary judgment on the antitrust claims and a jury verdict on the trademark claims. The jury also found that FICO committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring registration of the trademark. Secured affirmation of both the antitrust dismissal and the jury's verdict on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Global Investigations Represented technology companies as global counsel in competition investigations by enforcement agencies in the United States, Europe, India, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and numerous other jurisdictions.","searchable_name":"Ross E. Elfand","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":445138,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6236,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNils Eliasson, a partner in the firm\u0026rsquo;s International Arbitration group, advises clients on commercial and investment treaty disputes in Asia and around the world across a wide range of industry sectors, including energy, construction, private equity and telecommunications. In addition to acting as counsel, he is frequently appointed as arbitrator in international proceedings. Nils\u0026rsquo; experience as a leading arbitration practitioner is widely recognized by independent legal directories, including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers \u0026amp; Partners\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils acts as counsel in commercial and investment treaty disputes conducted under the auspices of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Vienna International Arbitration Center (VIAC), German International Arbitration Institute (DIS) and the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), as well as in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils\u0026rsquo; experience includes disputes related to joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, energy, oil and gas, infrastructure, construction, engineering, license disputes, telecommunications, and real estate. He has also handled investment treaty arbitrations under various bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty. He serves as Vice-Chair of HKIAC and is a member of the HKIAC Council.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils has been presiding arbitrator, sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator and emergency arbitrator in international arbitration proceedings under the rules of the ICC, HKIAC, SCC, KCAB, CIETAC, and UNCITRAL in disputes arising from sales agreements, supply agreements, joint ventures, asset transfer agreements, share subscription and share purchase agreements, shareholder agreements and ship building contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils was named \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in China (2020)\u003c/em\u003e. He is also featured as a Global Leader in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal: Arbitration\u003c/em\u003e, which describes him as a \u0026ldquo;\u0026lsquo;very smart\u0026rsquo; arbitration specialist who is highly recommended for his impressive experience handling disputes under various arbitral rules from HKIAC to ICC and LCIA\u0026rdquo; (2020). Previous editions note that \u0026ldquo;Nils Eliasson comes \u0026lsquo;highly recommended\u0026rsquo; thanks to his \u0026lsquo;practical approach and strong legal mindset\u0026rsquo;.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Asia-Pacific 2021\u003c/em\u003e, where he is ranked in Band 1, noted that \u0026ldquo;Nils Eliasson is held in high esteem for his veteran experience on investment treaty arbitrations, construction and project development disputes and commercial disputes for both domestic and international corporates.\u0026rdquo; A client reports: \u0026ldquo;He's a brilliant lawyer who is extremely smart and talented, but very humble with clients and very present while working with us.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Publications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Levelling the International Arbitration Playing Field: Outcome-Related Fee Structure Reform in Hong Kong and Singapore,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAsian Dispute Review\u003c/em\u003e, April 2021 (with E. Taylor)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Strong Foundations on which Hong Kong\u0026rsquo;s Status as a Leading Seat of International Arbitration Rests Remain Intact,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHong Kong Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, April 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Treaty Remedies,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eManaging \u0026lsquo;Belt and Road\u0026rsquo; Business Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(M. Moser and C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2021)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Chinese Outbound Investments in the Belt and Road: What Protection Do China\u0026rsquo;s Investment Treaties Have to Offer?,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInternational Arbitration: When East Meets West: Liber Amicorum Michael Moser\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N. Kaplan, M. Pryles, C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2020)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Some Reflections on Hong Kong from an Investment Treaty Perspective,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eForward!, - B?e???! \u0026ndash; Fram\u0026aring;t! \u0026ndash; Essays in Honour of Prof Dr Kaj Hob\u0026eacute;r\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Lustus, 2019)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Review of Investment Treaty Awards by Municipal Courts,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArbitration under International Investment Agreements\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;2 (Oxford, 2nd\u0026nbsp;ed., 2018) \u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;China\u0026rsquo;s Investment Treaty Programme: Past, present and future,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChina Business Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, Apr. 2017, at 23 (with E. Jacomy)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Hong Kong,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Asia Arbitration Guide\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Respondek \u0026amp; Fan, 3rd ed., 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Arbitration and Hong Kong,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArbitration in Hong Kong: A Practical Guide\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Chief Justice Ma \u0026amp; D. Brock eds., 2nd, 3rd\u0026nbsp;and 4th\u0026nbsp;ed., Sweet \u0026amp; Maxwell, 2011, 2014 and 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Will Asia Change International Arbitration?,\u0026rdquo; Maxwell Conversations, October 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Let's talk arbitration in the Philippines,\u0026rdquo; HKIAC Virtual Brown Bag Series, April 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Making Virtual Hearing Work,\u0026rdquo; Roundtable discussion (Chair), Hong Kong, March 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sovereign States and Foreign Investors: How to Mitigate (the new) Risks of Disputes?,\u0026ldquo; ICC Belgium /CEPANI webinar, December 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Year One of the New Normal: What has changed, what must change, and are these changes here to stay?,\u0026rdquo; 9th\u0026nbsp;Asia-Pacific ADR Virtual Conference - The New Arbitration Landscape: 2020 and Beyond, November 2020\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;HKIAC\u0026rsquo;s Virtual Hearing Capabilities and Hong Kong as seat of Arbitration,\u0026rdquo; HKIAC-JIDRC Collaborative Webinar, September 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Win-Win Collaboration of ADRs,\u0026rdquo; Shanghai International Arbitration Summit organized by SHIAC, Shanghai, November 2019\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Recognition and Enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement - Article II of the New York Convention,\u0026rdquo; 3rd\u0026nbsp;UNCITRAL Asia Pacific Judicial Summit 2019, Hong Kong, November 2019\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;How urgent is emergency relief? Predictability and substantive standards,\u0026rdquo; Launch of the ICC Commission Report on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings, Seoul, September 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Arbitration \u0026ndash; Issues and Insights\u0026rdquo; panel discussion, at the BIICL (British Institute of International and Comparative Law) conference on International Dispute Resolution: Reflections and Redirections, Hong Kong, July 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Key features of the new 2018 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules,\u0026rdquo; co-led panel discussion with representatives of the HKIAC, HKIAC Road Show Event, New York, June 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Arbitrator conflicts and challenges,\u0026rdquo; at the HKIAC | LCIA Joint Seminar: Arbitrator appointments, conflicts and challenges, Hong Kong, January 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDebate on the Future of ISDS: Arbitration vs Mediation, Hong Kong Forum - 60th\u0026nbsp;Anniversary of New York Convention, Hong Kong, September 2018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"nils-rolandsson-eliasson","email":"neliasson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its contractual and investment treaty rights in relation to a dispute with a South East Asian state-owned company. The dispute arises from a Production Sharing Contract. The contract provides for ad hoc arbitration in Singapore under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian LNG buyer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to gas price review mechanism and risks in the Asia-Pacific LNG market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esubsidiary of an Asian State-owned company in the energy sector\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein two parallel ICC arbitrations in Singapore initiated by its Asian co-shareholder and its parent company. The dispute arose from two agreements related to the development of an oil storage facility and related port facilities in Asia. English law and the law of the Claimants\u0026rsquo; State applied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned Enterprise\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising under a long-term gas supply agreement. Over $2 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules against a sovereign State regarding a production-sharing agreement for the extraction of hydrocarbons. Over $100 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration proceedings in London against a Russian oil company under the LCIA Rules. The dispute concerned pricing issues for oil transportation over the Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean Oil Pipeline. Over $150 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruction and Engineering\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eheavy equipment supplier and contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to an arbitration and a number of delay, disruption, defects and other disputes arising out of two energy construction projects in Africa with claims and counterclaims of over $2 billion. The law of the country of the projects applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian State-owned entity and its joint venture partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a Middle Eastern State-owned entity. The dispute arises from an EPC contract for the construction of a large petrochemical project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian contractor and its subsidiary\u003c/strong\u003e, Claimants in parallel HKIAC arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong against an owner company. The dispute arose from an EPC contract and related contracts for the construction of a power plant in the Philippines. Philippines law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian State-owned entity and its subsidiaries\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Stockholm against a State-owned entity in a Central Asian State. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a plant on a turnkey (EPC) basis. The amount at stake exceeded $200 million.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFrench-German consortium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over \u0026euro;6.1 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emultiple Asian companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute against an American consortium concerning the construction of a nuclear power plant. Over $3 billion is at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute against a European chemical company in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising out of a series of engineering services contracts for the design and construction of a petrochemical plant. $1.8 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness Combination Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einternational professional services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a European consulting company. The dispute concerns the earn out provision of a share purchase agreement. The contract is governed by Danish law and provides for arbitration under the Rules of the Danish Institute of Arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-profile recording artist and media entrepreneur\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and their Delaware incorporated company in parallel joint venture disputes with Cayman Islands\u0026rsquo; corporate entities. The disputes arose from joint venture agreements concerning media and technology businesses in Mainland China and North America. The agreements were governed by Hong Kong law and provided for HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHong Kong, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands corporate entities and directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as Claimants in ICC arbitration and Emergency Arbitrator proceedings in Hong Kong and as Respondents in parallel High Court of Hong Kong proceedings. The dispute arises from a private equity co-investment agreement. Hong Kong law applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund and its founder\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC and HKIAC arbitrations initiated by the fund\u0026rsquo;s general partner and an alleged investor in the fund, as well as in related domestic court proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. The arbitrations each concerned ownership of various entities in the fund structure. Hong Kong and Cayman Islands law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in HKIAC arbitration proceedings against a U.S. company concerning a joint venture and technology transfer. Over $150 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSri Lankan company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration proceedings in Singapore under the SIAC Rules against a European supplier and developer of business systems. The dispute concerned the control and management of a Sri Lankan joint venture company and $120 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Commercial Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNorth American technology company\u003c/strong\u003e, Respondent in an ICC arbitration in Hong Kong brought by an Asian electronics manufacturer. The dispute arises from a manufacturing agreement and related guarantee. Hong Kong law applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned telecommunication provider\u003c/strong\u003e, Respondent in SIAC arbitration in Hong Kong. The dispute arose from a long-term services agreement. Singapore law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAfrican telecom infrastructure company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with an African telecom provider. The dispute arose from an infrastructure license agreement. The contract was governed by New York law and provided for ICC arbitration in Paris.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings in Singapore against a Chinese company concerning the breach of license agreements for minerals and metal processing technology. Over \u0026euro;100 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese telecommunication solution provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in five parallel SCC and UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong and Stockholm against a Ukrainian mobile phone operator. Over $50 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvestment Treaty Arbitrations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of China\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration brought by Hela Schwarz GmbH (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19). The claims are brought under the China-Germany bilateral investment treaty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;shareholder of Yukos\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment treaty arbitration against the Russian Federation based on a bilateral investment treaty. Over $75 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment treaty arbitration against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty and the ICSID Convention. Over \u0026euro;1.4 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3281}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Eliasson","nick_name":"Nils","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Nils","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in predictions regarding fees, timelines.”","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in prep and conduct of hearing.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is able to digest the essence of a commercial.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Extremely skilled legal and arbitration professionals led by Nils Eliasson.” ","detail":" Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"Nils Eliasson – Recommended Lawyer","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"\"Nils Eliasson is extremely capable, an industry leader and very effective team leader as well.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"\"Nils is a highly skilled, detail-oriented and serious litigator.\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils is very comprehensive in his analysis. He is easy to work with.”","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils' advice is always practical and persuasive. We trust him and value his advice.”","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is an extremely effective advocate with comprehensive experience.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"\"Nils Eliasson who is recommended for his expertise in M\u0026A, private equity investments, and joint ventures.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, Foreign Firms, Philippines 2025"},{"title":"Ranked “Global Elite Thought Leader”","detail":"LEXOLOGY INDEX: SOUTHEAST ASIA - ARBITRATION, 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is extremely smart, hard-working and easy to work with, and he thinks deeply about the issues facing his clients”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is a very skilled, strong and engaged lawyer”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is top notch in all elements”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Very happy with Nils Eliasson’s timeliness and quality of his work product, and skill in advocacy and communication“ ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils was very responsive, hard-working on a matter that was super-urgent and arose at an inconvenient time\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils has great cultural insights and is clear in what he thinks and his reasoning\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"\"Academically Nils is very strong and has a lot of insight into arbitration in Asia\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils has vast experience in commercial arbitration and is very easy to work with\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"Ranked Band 1 in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2017-2022"},{"title":"Top ranked in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)","detail":"China and Dispute Resolution – Sweden Chambers Global, 2017-2022"},{"title":"Named a Global Leader","detail":"Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, 2018 - 2021"},{"title":"Named Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing","detail":"Best Lawyers in China 1st edition, 2020"},{"title":"Recognized in The A-List China’s Elite 100 Lawyers (Foreign Firms)”","detail":"China Business Law Journal, 2019 - 2020"},{"title":"Named a Litigation Star in Hong Kong","detail":"Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific, 2020"},{"title":"Named a Leading Individual","detail":"The Legal 500 Asia-Pacific"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/nils-eliasson-internationalarbitration-hongkong/","seodescription":"Nils Eliasson is a partner in the firm’s International Arbitration group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNils Eliasson, a partner in the firm\u0026rsquo;s International Arbitration group, advises clients on commercial and investment treaty disputes in Asia and around the world across a wide range of industry sectors, including energy, construction, private equity and telecommunications. In addition to acting as counsel, he is frequently appointed as arbitrator in international proceedings. Nils\u0026rsquo; experience as a leading arbitration practitioner is widely recognized by independent legal directories, including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers \u0026amp; Partners\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils acts as counsel in commercial and investment treaty disputes conducted under the auspices of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Vienna International Arbitration Center (VIAC), German International Arbitration Institute (DIS) and the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), as well as in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils\u0026rsquo; experience includes disputes related to joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, energy, oil and gas, infrastructure, construction, engineering, license disputes, telecommunications, and real estate. He has also handled investment treaty arbitrations under various bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty. He serves as Vice-Chair of HKIAC and is a member of the HKIAC Council.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils has been presiding arbitrator, sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator and emergency arbitrator in international arbitration proceedings under the rules of the ICC, HKIAC, SCC, KCAB, CIETAC, and UNCITRAL in disputes arising from sales agreements, supply agreements, joint ventures, asset transfer agreements, share subscription and share purchase agreements, shareholder agreements and ship building contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils was named \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in China (2020)\u003c/em\u003e. He is also featured as a Global Leader in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal: Arbitration\u003c/em\u003e, which describes him as a \u0026ldquo;\u0026lsquo;very smart\u0026rsquo; arbitration specialist who is highly recommended for his impressive experience handling disputes under various arbitral rules from HKIAC to ICC and LCIA\u0026rdquo; (2020). Previous editions note that \u0026ldquo;Nils Eliasson comes \u0026lsquo;highly recommended\u0026rsquo; thanks to his \u0026lsquo;practical approach and strong legal mindset\u0026rsquo;.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Asia-Pacific 2021\u003c/em\u003e, where he is ranked in Band 1, noted that \u0026ldquo;Nils Eliasson is held in high esteem for his veteran experience on investment treaty arbitrations, construction and project development disputes and commercial disputes for both domestic and international corporates.\u0026rdquo; A client reports: \u0026ldquo;He's a brilliant lawyer who is extremely smart and talented, but very humble with clients and very present while working with us.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Publications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Levelling the International Arbitration Playing Field: Outcome-Related Fee Structure Reform in Hong Kong and Singapore,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAsian Dispute Review\u003c/em\u003e, April 2021 (with E. Taylor)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Strong Foundations on which Hong Kong\u0026rsquo;s Status as a Leading Seat of International Arbitration Rests Remain Intact,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHong Kong Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, April 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Treaty Remedies,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eManaging \u0026lsquo;Belt and Road\u0026rsquo; Business Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(M. Moser and C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2021)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Chinese Outbound Investments in the Belt and Road: What Protection Do China\u0026rsquo;s Investment Treaties Have to Offer?,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInternational Arbitration: When East Meets West: Liber Amicorum Michael Moser\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N. Kaplan, M. Pryles, C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2020)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Some Reflections on Hong Kong from an Investment Treaty Perspective,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eForward!, - B?e???! \u0026ndash; Fram\u0026aring;t! \u0026ndash; Essays in Honour of Prof Dr Kaj Hob\u0026eacute;r\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Lustus, 2019)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Review of Investment Treaty Awards by Municipal Courts,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArbitration under International Investment Agreements\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;2 (Oxford, 2nd\u0026nbsp;ed., 2018) \u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;China\u0026rsquo;s Investment Treaty Programme: Past, present and future,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChina Business Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, Apr. 2017, at 23 (with E. Jacomy)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Hong Kong,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Asia Arbitration Guide\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Respondek \u0026amp; Fan, 3rd ed., 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Arbitration and Hong Kong,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArbitration in Hong Kong: A Practical Guide\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Chief Justice Ma \u0026amp; D. Brock eds., 2nd, 3rd\u0026nbsp;and 4th\u0026nbsp;ed., Sweet \u0026amp; Maxwell, 2011, 2014 and 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Will Asia Change International Arbitration?,\u0026rdquo; Maxwell Conversations, October 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Let's talk arbitration in the Philippines,\u0026rdquo; HKIAC Virtual Brown Bag Series, April 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Making Virtual Hearing Work,\u0026rdquo; Roundtable discussion (Chair), Hong Kong, March 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sovereign States and Foreign Investors: How to Mitigate (the new) Risks of Disputes?,\u0026ldquo; ICC Belgium /CEPANI webinar, December 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Year One of the New Normal: What has changed, what must change, and are these changes here to stay?,\u0026rdquo; 9th\u0026nbsp;Asia-Pacific ADR Virtual Conference - The New Arbitration Landscape: 2020 and Beyond, November 2020\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;HKIAC\u0026rsquo;s Virtual Hearing Capabilities and Hong Kong as seat of Arbitration,\u0026rdquo; HKIAC-JIDRC Collaborative Webinar, September 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Win-Win Collaboration of ADRs,\u0026rdquo; Shanghai International Arbitration Summit organized by SHIAC, Shanghai, November 2019\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Recognition and Enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement - Article II of the New York Convention,\u0026rdquo; 3rd\u0026nbsp;UNCITRAL Asia Pacific Judicial Summit 2019, Hong Kong, November 2019\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;How urgent is emergency relief? Predictability and substantive standards,\u0026rdquo; Launch of the ICC Commission Report on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings, Seoul, September 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Arbitration \u0026ndash; Issues and Insights\u0026rdquo; panel discussion, at the BIICL (British Institute of International and Comparative Law) conference on International Dispute Resolution: Reflections and Redirections, Hong Kong, July 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Key features of the new 2018 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules,\u0026rdquo; co-led panel discussion with representatives of the HKIAC, HKIAC Road Show Event, New York, June 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Arbitrator conflicts and challenges,\u0026rdquo; at the HKIAC | LCIA Joint Seminar: Arbitrator appointments, conflicts and challenges, Hong Kong, January 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDebate on the Future of ISDS: Arbitration vs Mediation, Hong Kong Forum - 60th\u0026nbsp;Anniversary of New York Convention, Hong Kong, September 2018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its contractual and investment treaty rights in relation to a dispute with a South East Asian state-owned company. The dispute arises from a Production Sharing Contract. The contract provides for ad hoc arbitration in Singapore under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian LNG buyer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to gas price review mechanism and risks in the Asia-Pacific LNG market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esubsidiary of an Asian State-owned company in the energy sector\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein two parallel ICC arbitrations in Singapore initiated by its Asian co-shareholder and its parent company. The dispute arose from two agreements related to the development of an oil storage facility and related port facilities in Asia. English law and the law of the Claimants\u0026rsquo; State applied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned Enterprise\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising under a long-term gas supply agreement. Over $2 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules against a sovereign State regarding a production-sharing agreement for the extraction of hydrocarbons. Over $100 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration proceedings in London against a Russian oil company under the LCIA Rules. The dispute concerned pricing issues for oil transportation over the Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean Oil Pipeline. Over $150 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruction and Engineering\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eheavy equipment supplier and contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to an arbitration and a number of delay, disruption, defects and other disputes arising out of two energy construction projects in Africa with claims and counterclaims of over $2 billion. The law of the country of the projects applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian State-owned entity and its joint venture partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a Middle Eastern State-owned entity. The dispute arises from an EPC contract for the construction of a large petrochemical project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian contractor and its subsidiary\u003c/strong\u003e, Claimants in parallel HKIAC arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong against an owner company. The dispute arose from an EPC contract and related contracts for the construction of a power plant in the Philippines. Philippines law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian State-owned entity and its subsidiaries\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Stockholm against a State-owned entity in a Central Asian State. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a plant on a turnkey (EPC) basis. The amount at stake exceeded $200 million.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFrench-German consortium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over \u0026euro;6.1 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emultiple Asian companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute against an American consortium concerning the construction of a nuclear power plant. Over $3 billion is at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute against a European chemical company in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising out of a series of engineering services contracts for the design and construction of a petrochemical plant. $1.8 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness Combination Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einternational professional services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a European consulting company. The dispute concerns the earn out provision of a share purchase agreement. The contract is governed by Danish law and provides for arbitration under the Rules of the Danish Institute of Arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-profile recording artist and media entrepreneur\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and their Delaware incorporated company in parallel joint venture disputes with Cayman Islands\u0026rsquo; corporate entities. The disputes arose from joint venture agreements concerning media and technology businesses in Mainland China and North America. The agreements were governed by Hong Kong law and provided for HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHong Kong, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands corporate entities and directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as Claimants in ICC arbitration and Emergency Arbitrator proceedings in Hong Kong and as Respondents in parallel High Court of Hong Kong proceedings. The dispute arises from a private equity co-investment agreement. Hong Kong law applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund and its founder\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC and HKIAC arbitrations initiated by the fund\u0026rsquo;s general partner and an alleged investor in the fund, as well as in related domestic court proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. The arbitrations each concerned ownership of various entities in the fund structure. Hong Kong and Cayman Islands law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in HKIAC arbitration proceedings against a U.S. company concerning a joint venture and technology transfer. Over $150 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSri Lankan company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration proceedings in Singapore under the SIAC Rules against a European supplier and developer of business systems. The dispute concerned the control and management of a Sri Lankan joint venture company and $120 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Commercial Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNorth American technology company\u003c/strong\u003e, Respondent in an ICC arbitration in Hong Kong brought by an Asian electronics manufacturer. The dispute arises from a manufacturing agreement and related guarantee. Hong Kong law applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned telecommunication provider\u003c/strong\u003e, Respondent in SIAC arbitration in Hong Kong. The dispute arose from a long-term services agreement. Singapore law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAfrican telecom infrastructure company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with an African telecom provider. The dispute arose from an infrastructure license agreement. The contract was governed by New York law and provided for ICC arbitration in Paris.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings in Singapore against a Chinese company concerning the breach of license agreements for minerals and metal processing technology. Over \u0026euro;100 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese telecommunication solution provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in five parallel SCC and UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong and Stockholm against a Ukrainian mobile phone operator. Over $50 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvestment Treaty Arbitrations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of China\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration brought by Hela Schwarz GmbH (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19). The claims are brought under the China-Germany bilateral investment treaty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;shareholder of Yukos\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment treaty arbitration against the Russian Federation based on a bilateral investment treaty. Over $75 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment treaty arbitration against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty and the ICSID Convention. Over \u0026euro;1.4 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in predictions regarding fees, timelines.”","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in prep and conduct of hearing.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is able to digest the essence of a commercial.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Extremely skilled legal and arbitration professionals led by Nils Eliasson.” ","detail":" Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"Nils Eliasson – Recommended Lawyer","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"\"Nils Eliasson is extremely capable, an industry leader and very effective team leader as well.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"\"Nils is a highly skilled, detail-oriented and serious litigator.\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils is very comprehensive in his analysis. He is easy to work with.”","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils' advice is always practical and persuasive. We trust him and value his advice.”","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is an extremely effective advocate with comprehensive experience.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"\"Nils Eliasson who is recommended for his expertise in M\u0026A, private equity investments, and joint ventures.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, Foreign Firms, Philippines 2025"},{"title":"Ranked “Global Elite Thought Leader”","detail":"LEXOLOGY INDEX: SOUTHEAST ASIA - ARBITRATION, 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is extremely smart, hard-working and easy to work with, and he thinks deeply about the issues facing his clients”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is a very skilled, strong and engaged lawyer”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is top notch in all elements”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Very happy with Nils Eliasson’s timeliness and quality of his work product, and skill in advocacy and communication“ ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils was very responsive, hard-working on a matter that was super-urgent and arose at an inconvenient time\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils has great cultural insights and is clear in what he thinks and his reasoning\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"\"Academically Nils is very strong and has a lot of insight into arbitration in Asia\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils has vast experience in commercial arbitration and is very easy to work with\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"Ranked Band 1 in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2017-2022"},{"title":"Top ranked in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)","detail":"China and Dispute Resolution – Sweden Chambers Global, 2017-2022"},{"title":"Named a Global Leader","detail":"Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, 2018 - 2021"},{"title":"Named Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing","detail":"Best Lawyers in China 1st edition, 2020"},{"title":"Recognized in The A-List China’s Elite 100 Lawyers (Foreign Firms)”","detail":"China Business Law Journal, 2019 - 2020"},{"title":"Named a Litigation Star in Hong Kong","detail":"Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific, 2020"},{"title":"Named a Leading Individual","detail":"The Legal 500 Asia-Pacific"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9629}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-20T22:07:42.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-20T22:07:42.000Z","searchable_text":"Eliasson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in predictions regarding fees, timelines.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in prep and conduct of hearing.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils Eliasson is able to digest the essence of a commercial.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Extremely skilled legal and arbitration professionals led by Nils Eliasson.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\" Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Nils Eliasson – Recommended Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils Eliasson is extremely capable, an industry leader and very effective team leader as well.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils is a highly skilled, detail-oriented and serious litigator.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils is very comprehensive in his analysis. He is easy to work with.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils' advice is always practical and persuasive. We trust him and value his advice.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils Eliasson is an extremely effective advocate with comprehensive experience.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils Eliasson who is recommended for his expertise in M\u0026amp;A, private equity investments, and joint ventures.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, Foreign Firms, Philippines 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked “Global Elite Thought Leader”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEXOLOGY INDEX: SOUTHEAST ASIA - ARBITRATION, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils is extremely smart, hard-working and easy to work with, and he thinks deeply about the issues facing his clients”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils is a very skilled, strong and engaged lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils is top notch in all elements”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Very happy with Nils Eliasson’s timeliness and quality of his work product, and skill in advocacy and communication“ \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils was very responsive, hard-working on a matter that was super-urgent and arose at an inconvenient time\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils has great cultural insights and is clear in what he thinks and his reasoning\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Academically Nils is very strong and has a lot of insight into arbitration in Asia\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils has vast experience in commercial arbitration and is very easy to work with\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 1 in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2017-2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top ranked in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"China and Dispute Resolution – Sweden Chambers Global, 2017-2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Global Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, 2018 - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in China 1st edition, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized in The A-List China’s Elite 100 Lawyers (Foreign Firms)”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"China Business Law Journal, 2019 - 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Litigation Star in Hong Kong\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Leading Individual\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 Asia-Pacific\"}{{ FIELD }}Energy\nAdvised Asian energy company on its contractual and investment treaty rights in relation to a dispute with a South East Asian state-owned company. The dispute arises from a Production Sharing Contract. The contract provides for ad hoc arbitration in Singapore under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.{{ FIELD }}Advised Asian LNG buyer in relation to gas price review mechanism and risks in the Asia-Pacific LNG market.{{ FIELD }}Represented the subsidiary of an Asian State-owned company in the energy sector in two parallel ICC arbitrations in Singapore initiated by its Asian co-shareholder and its parent company. The dispute arose from two agreements related to the development of an oil storage facility and related port facilities in Asia. English law and the law of the Claimants’ State applied.{{ FIELD }}Represented Chinese State-owned Enterprise in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising under a long-term gas supply agreement. Over $2 billion was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. oil and gas company in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules against a sovereign State regarding a production-sharing agreement for the extraction of hydrocarbons. Over $100 million was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Represented Chinese oil company in arbitration proceedings in London against a Russian oil company under the LCIA Rules. The dispute concerned pricing issues for oil transportation over the Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean Oil Pipeline. Over $150 million was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Construction and Engineering\nRepresenting heavy equipment supplier and contractor in relation to an arbitration and a number of delay, disruption, defects and other disputes arising out of two energy construction projects in Africa with claims and counterclaims of over $2 billion. The law of the country of the projects applies.\nRepresenting Asian State-owned entity and its joint venture partners in a dispute with a Middle Eastern State-owned entity. The dispute arises from an EPC contract for the construction of a large petrochemical project.\nRepresented Asian contractor and its subsidiary, Claimants in parallel HKIAC arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong against an owner company. The dispute arose from an EPC contract and related contracts for the construction of a power plant in the Philippines. Philippines law applied.\nRepresented Asian State-owned entity and its subsidiaries in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Stockholm against a State-owned entity in a Central Asian State. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a plant on a turnkey (EPC) basis. The amount at stake exceeded $200 million.\nRepresented French-German consortium in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over €6.1 billion was at stake.\nAdvising multiple Asian companies in a dispute against an American consortium concerning the construction of a nuclear power plant. Over $3 billion is at stake.\nRepresented Chinese State-owned enterprises in a dispute against a European chemical company in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising out of a series of engineering services contracts for the design and construction of a petrochemical plant. $1.8 billion was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Business Combination Disputes\nRepresented an international professional services company in a dispute with a European consulting company. The dispute concerns the earn out provision of a share purchase agreement. The contract is governed by Danish law and provides for arbitration under the Rules of the Danish Institute of Arbitration.\nAdvised a high-profile recording artist and media entrepreneur and their Delaware incorporated company in parallel joint venture disputes with Cayman Islands’ corporate entities. The disputes arose from joint venture agreements concerning media and technology businesses in Mainland China and North America. The agreements were governed by Hong Kong law and provided for HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong.\nRepresented Hong Kong, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands corporate entities and directors as Claimants in ICC arbitration and Emergency Arbitrator proceedings in Hong Kong and as Respondents in parallel High Court of Hong Kong proceedings. The dispute arises from a private equity co-investment agreement. Hong Kong law applies.\nRepresented a private equity fund and its founder in ICC and HKIAC arbitrations initiated by the fund’s general partner and an alleged investor in the fund, as well as in related domestic court proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. The arbitrations each concerned ownership of various entities in the fund structure. Hong Kong and Cayman Islands law applied.\nRepresented a Chinese company in HKIAC arbitration proceedings against a U.S. company concerning a joint venture and technology transfer. Over $150 million was at stake.\nRepresented a Sri Lankan company in arbitration proceedings in Singapore under the SIAC Rules against a European supplier and developer of business systems. The dispute concerned the control and management of a Sri Lankan joint venture company and $120 million was at stake.{{ FIELD }}General Commercial Disputes\nRepresenting North American technology company, Respondent in an ICC arbitration in Hong Kong brought by an Asian electronics manufacturer. The dispute arises from a manufacturing agreement and related guarantee. Hong Kong law applies.\nRepresented Chinese State-owned telecommunication provider, Respondent in SIAC arbitration in Hong Kong. The dispute arose from a long-term services agreement. Singapore law applied.\nAdvised an African telecom infrastructure company in a dispute with an African telecom provider. The dispute arose from an infrastructure license agreement. The contract was governed by New York law and provided for ICC arbitration in Paris.\nRepresented European company in ICC arbitration proceedings in Singapore against a Chinese company concerning the breach of license agreements for minerals and metal processing technology. Over €100 million was at stake.\nRepresented Chinese telecommunication solution provider in five parallel SCC and UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong and Stockholm against a Ukrainian mobile phone operator. Over $50 million was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Investment Treaty Arbitrations\nRepresenting the People’s Republic of China in an ICSID arbitration brought by Hela Schwarz GmbH (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19). The claims are brought under the China-Germany bilateral investment treaty.\nRepresented a shareholder of Yukos in an investment treaty arbitration against the Russian Federation based on a bilateral investment treaty. Over $75 million was at stake.\nRepresented a European energy company in an investment treaty arbitration against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty and the ICSID Convention. Over €1.4 billion was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Nils Eliasson, a partner in the firm’s International Arbitration group, advises clients on commercial and investment treaty disputes in Asia and around the world across a wide range of industry sectors, including energy, construction, private equity and telecommunications. In addition to acting as counsel, he is frequently appointed as arbitrator in international proceedings. Nils’ experience as a leading arbitration practitioner is widely recognized by independent legal directories, including Who’s Who Legal, Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, Legal 500, and Best Lawyers.   \nNils acts as counsel in commercial and investment treaty disputes conducted under the auspices of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Vienna International Arbitration Center (VIAC), German International Arbitration Institute (DIS) and the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), as well as in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.\nNils’ experience includes disputes related to joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, energy, oil and gas, infrastructure, construction, engineering, license disputes, telecommunications, and real estate. He has also handled investment treaty arbitrations under various bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty. He serves as Vice-Chair of HKIAC and is a member of the HKIAC Council.\nNils has been presiding arbitrator, sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator and emergency arbitrator in international arbitration proceedings under the rules of the ICC, HKIAC, SCC, KCAB, CIETAC, and UNCITRAL in disputes arising from sales agreements, supply agreements, joint ventures, asset transfer agreements, share subscription and share purchase agreements, shareholder agreements and ship building contracts.\nNils was named “Lawyer of the Year” for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing by Best Lawyers in China (2020). He is also featured as a Global Leader in Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, which describes him as a “‘very smart’ arbitration specialist who is highly recommended for his impressive experience handling disputes under various arbitral rules from HKIAC to ICC and LCIA” (2020). Previous editions note that “Nils Eliasson comes ‘highly recommended’ thanks to his ‘practical approach and strong legal mindset’.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2021, where he is ranked in Band 1, noted that “Nils Eliasson is held in high esteem for his veteran experience on investment treaty arbitrations, construction and project development disputes and commercial disputes for both domestic and international corporates.” A client reports: “He's a brilliant lawyer who is extremely smart and talented, but very humble with clients and very present while working with us.”\nRecent Publications\n\n“Levelling the International Arbitration Playing Field: Outcome-Related Fee Structure Reform in Hong Kong and Singapore,” Asian Dispute Review, April 2021 (with E. Taylor)\n“The Strong Foundations on which Hong Kong’s Status as a Leading Seat of International Arbitration Rests Remain Intact,” Hong Kong Lawyer, April 2021\n“Investment Treaty Remedies,” Managing ‘Belt and Road’ Business Disputes (M. Moser and C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2021)\n“Chinese Outbound Investments in the Belt and Road: What Protection Do China’s Investment Treaties Have to Offer?,” International Arbitration: When East Meets West: Liber Amicorum Michael Moser (N. Kaplan, M. Pryles, C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2020)\n“Some Reflections on Hong Kong from an Investment Treaty Perspective,” Forward!, - B?e???! – Framåt! – Essays in Honour of Prof Dr Kaj Hobér (Lustus, 2019) \n“Review of Investment Treaty Awards by Municipal Courts,” Arbitration under International Investment Agreements 2 (Oxford, 2nd ed., 2018)  “China’s Investment Treaty Programme: Past, present and future,” China Business Law Journal, Apr. 2017, at 23 (with E. Jacomy)\n“Hong Kong,”  Asia Arbitration Guide (Respondek \u0026amp; Fan, 3rd ed., 2017)\n“Investment Arbitration and Hong Kong,” Arbitration in Hong Kong: A Practical Guide (Chief Justice Ma \u0026amp; D. Brock eds., 2nd, 3rd and 4th ed., Sweet \u0026amp; Maxwell, 2011, 2014 and 2017)\n\nSpeaking Engagements\n\n“Will Asia Change International Arbitration?,” Maxwell Conversations, October 2021\n“Let's talk arbitration in the Philippines,” HKIAC Virtual Brown Bag Series, April 2021\n“Making Virtual Hearing Work,” Roundtable discussion (Chair), Hong Kong, March 2021\n“Sovereign States and Foreign Investors: How to Mitigate (the new) Risks of Disputes?,“ ICC Belgium /CEPANI webinar, December 2020\n“Year One of the New Normal: What has changed, what must change, and are these changes here to stay?,” 9th Asia-Pacific ADR Virtual Conference - The New Arbitration Landscape: 2020 and Beyond, November 2020 \n“HKIAC’s Virtual Hearing Capabilities and Hong Kong as seat of Arbitration,” HKIAC-JIDRC Collaborative Webinar, September 2020\n“Win-Win Collaboration of ADRs,” Shanghai International Arbitration Summit organized by SHIAC, Shanghai, November 2019 \n“Recognition and Enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement - Article II of the New York Convention,” 3rd UNCITRAL Asia Pacific Judicial Summit 2019, Hong Kong, November 2019 \n“How urgent is emergency relief? Predictability and substantive standards,” Launch of the ICC Commission Report on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings, Seoul, September 2019\n“Investment Arbitration – Issues and Insights” panel discussion, at the BIICL (British Institute of International and Comparative Law) conference on International Dispute Resolution: Reflections and Redirections, Hong Kong, July 2019\n“Key features of the new 2018 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules,” co-led panel discussion with representatives of the HKIAC, HKIAC Road Show Event, New York, June 2019\n“Arbitrator conflicts and challenges,” at the HKIAC | LCIA Joint Seminar: Arbitrator appointments, conflicts and challenges, Hong Kong, January 2019\nDebate on the Future of ISDS: Arbitration vs Mediation, Hong Kong Forum - 60th Anniversary of New York Convention, Hong Kong, September 2018\n Nils Eliasson lawyer Partner “Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in predictions regarding fees, timelines.” Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in prep and conduct of hearing.”  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Nils Eliasson is able to digest the essence of a commercial.”  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Extremely skilled legal and arbitration professionals led by Nils Eliasson.”   Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 Nils Eliasson – Recommended Lawyer Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 \"Nils Eliasson is extremely capable, an industry leader and very effective team leader as well.”  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 \"Nils is a highly skilled, detail-oriented and serious litigator.\" Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Nils is very comprehensive in his analysis. He is easy to work with.” Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Nils' advice is always practical and persuasive. We trust him and value his advice.” Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Nils Eliasson is an extremely effective advocate with comprehensive experience.”  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2025 \"Nils Eliasson who is recommended for his expertise in M\u0026amp;A, private equity investments, and joint ventures.\" Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, Foreign Firms, Philippines 2025 Ranked “Global Elite Thought Leader” LEXOLOGY INDEX: SOUTHEAST ASIA - ARBITRATION, 2025 “Nils is extremely smart, hard-working and easy to work with, and he thinks deeply about the issues facing his clients” Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025 “Nils is a very skilled, strong and engaged lawyer” Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025 “Nils is top notch in all elements” Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025 “Very happy with Nils Eliasson’s timeliness and quality of his work product, and skill in advocacy and communication“  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024 \"Nils was very responsive, hard-working on a matter that was super-urgent and arose at an inconvenient time\"  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024 \"Nils has great cultural insights and is clear in what he thinks and his reasoning\" Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024 \"Academically Nils is very strong and has a lot of insight into arbitration in Asia\" Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024 \"Nils has vast experience in commercial arbitration and is very easy to work with\" Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024 Ranked Band 1 in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms) Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2017-2022 Top ranked in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms) China and Dispute Resolution – Sweden Chambers Global, 2017-2022 Named a Global Leader Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, 2018 - 2021 Named Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing Best Lawyers in China 1st edition, 2020 Recognized in The A-List China’s Elite 100 Lawyers (Foreign Firms)” China Business Law Journal, 2019 - 2020 Named a Litigation Star in Hong Kong Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific, 2020 Named a Leading Individual The Legal 500 Asia-Pacific Utrecht University Utrecht University Lund University  Lund University  Hong Kong Sweden Member, Hong Kong Government Advisory Committee on Arbitration (2019–2021) Member, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) Founder and Past Executive Committee Member, HK45 Member, Swedish Arbitration Association (SAA) Member, Hong Kong Law Society Member, Swedish Bar Association Member, International Bar Association (IBA) Member, Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) Vice-Chair, HKIAC Chairman, HKIAC Proceedings Committee (2015-2021) Member, ICC Commission on Arbitration Member, ICC Task Force on Decisions as to Costs Member, ICC Task Force on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings Member, ICC Arbitration Committee, Hong Kong Member, LCIA Member, International Arbitration Institute (IAI) Energy\nAdvised Asian energy company on its contractual and investment treaty rights in relation to a dispute with a South East Asian state-owned company. The dispute arises from a Production Sharing Contract. The contract provides for ad hoc arbitration in Singapore under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Advised Asian LNG buyer in relation to gas price review mechanism and risks in the Asia-Pacific LNG market. Represented the subsidiary of an Asian State-owned company in the energy sector in two parallel ICC arbitrations in Singapore initiated by its Asian co-shareholder and its parent company. The dispute arose from two agreements related to the development of an oil storage facility and related port facilities in Asia. English law and the law of the Claimants’ State applied. Represented Chinese State-owned Enterprise in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising under a long-term gas supply agreement. Over $2 billion was at stake. Represented a U.S. oil and gas company in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules against a sovereign State regarding a production-sharing agreement for the extraction of hydrocarbons. Over $100 million was at stake. Represented Chinese oil company in arbitration proceedings in London against a Russian oil company under the LCIA Rules. The dispute concerned pricing issues for oil transportation over the Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean Oil Pipeline. Over $150 million was at stake. Construction and Engineering\nRepresenting heavy equipment supplier and contractor in relation to an arbitration and a number of delay, disruption, defects and other disputes arising out of two energy construction projects in Africa with claims and counterclaims of over $2 billion. The law of the country of the projects applies.\nRepresenting Asian State-owned entity and its joint venture partners in a dispute with a Middle Eastern State-owned entity. The dispute arises from an EPC contract for the construction of a large petrochemical project.\nRepresented Asian contractor and its subsidiary, Claimants in parallel HKIAC arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong against an owner company. The dispute arose from an EPC contract and related contracts for the construction of a power plant in the Philippines. Philippines law applied.\nRepresented Asian State-owned entity and its subsidiaries in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Stockholm against a State-owned entity in a Central Asian State. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a plant on a turnkey (EPC) basis. The amount at stake exceeded $200 million.\nRepresented French-German consortium in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over €6.1 billion was at stake.\nAdvising multiple Asian companies in a dispute against an American consortium concerning the construction of a nuclear power plant. Over $3 billion is at stake.\nRepresented Chinese State-owned enterprises in a dispute against a European chemical company in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising out of a series of engineering services contracts for the design and construction of a petrochemical plant. $1.8 billion was at stake. Business Combination Disputes\nRepresented an international professional services company in a dispute with a European consulting company. The dispute concerns the earn out provision of a share purchase agreement. The contract is governed by Danish law and provides for arbitration under the Rules of the Danish Institute of Arbitration.\nAdvised a high-profile recording artist and media entrepreneur and their Delaware incorporated company in parallel joint venture disputes with Cayman Islands’ corporate entities. The disputes arose from joint venture agreements concerning media and technology businesses in Mainland China and North America. The agreements were governed by Hong Kong law and provided for HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong.\nRepresented Hong Kong, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands corporate entities and directors as Claimants in ICC arbitration and Emergency Arbitrator proceedings in Hong Kong and as Respondents in parallel High Court of Hong Kong proceedings. The dispute arises from a private equity co-investment agreement. Hong Kong law applies.\nRepresented a private equity fund and its founder in ICC and HKIAC arbitrations initiated by the fund’s general partner and an alleged investor in the fund, as well as in related domestic court proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. The arbitrations each concerned ownership of various entities in the fund structure. Hong Kong and Cayman Islands law applied.\nRepresented a Chinese company in HKIAC arbitration proceedings against a U.S. company concerning a joint venture and technology transfer. Over $150 million was at stake.\nRepresented a Sri Lankan company in arbitration proceedings in Singapore under the SIAC Rules against a European supplier and developer of business systems. The dispute concerned the control and management of a Sri Lankan joint venture company and $120 million was at stake. General Commercial Disputes\nRepresenting North American technology company, Respondent in an ICC arbitration in Hong Kong brought by an Asian electronics manufacturer. The dispute arises from a manufacturing agreement and related guarantee. Hong Kong law applies.\nRepresented Chinese State-owned telecommunication provider, Respondent in SIAC arbitration in Hong Kong. The dispute arose from a long-term services agreement. Singapore law applied.\nAdvised an African telecom infrastructure company in a dispute with an African telecom provider. The dispute arose from an infrastructure license agreement. The contract was governed by New York law and provided for ICC arbitration in Paris.\nRepresented European company in ICC arbitration proceedings in Singapore against a Chinese company concerning the breach of license agreements for minerals and metal processing technology. Over €100 million was at stake.\nRepresented Chinese telecommunication solution provider in five parallel SCC and UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong and Stockholm against a Ukrainian mobile phone operator. Over $50 million was at stake. Investment Treaty Arbitrations\nRepresenting the People’s Republic of China in an ICSID arbitration brought by Hela Schwarz GmbH (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19). The claims are brought under the China-Germany bilateral investment treaty.\nRepresented a shareholder of Yukos in an investment treaty arbitration against the Russian Federation based on a bilateral investment treaty. Over $75 million was at stake.\nRepresented a European energy company in an investment treaty arbitration against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty and the ICSID Convention. Over €1.4 billion was at stake.","searchable_name":"Nils Eliasson","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":442750,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5177,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian is\u0026nbsp;a trial attorney who specializes in patent disputes and other complex litigation in state and federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.\u0026nbsp; He routinely represents clients in high-stakes cases\u0026nbsp;involving injunctive relief and hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian's practice focuses on complex patent litigation and \u003cem\u003einter partes \u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings across a wide variety of technologies, including medical devices, enterprise hardware and software, wireless communications, website development, semiconductors, and LEDs.\u0026nbsp; He has experience in all aspects of patent litigation, including developing and implementing case strategies, managing day-to-day discovery and client communications, motion practice, fact and expert depositions, oral argument, trial preparation, and post-trial and appellate briefing.\u0026nbsp; In addition to patent disputes, Brian has litigated trade secret, employment, and contract cases in\u0026nbsp;state and federal courts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"brian-eutermoser","email":"beutermoser@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMedline Industries\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e v. C.R. Bard \u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of Illinois) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Medline in multiple district court actions involving urology products and procedures\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Lawrence Communications v. \u003cstrong\u003eMotorola Mobility \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Eastern District of Texas) \u0026ndash; trial counsel for Motorola in a patent case involving speech coders used in cellular communications\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinjan v. \u003cstrong\u003ePalo Alto Networks \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Patent Trial and Appeal Board) \u0026ndash; counsel for Palo Alto Networks in \u003cem\u003einter partes \u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings involving malware detection software\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpen Text \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. Box.com \u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; trial counsel for Open Text in a patent infringement action involving cloud storage systems\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eT3 Media v. \u003cstrong\u003eBBC Worldwide \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(District of Colorado) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for the BBC in a media rights licensing dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHSM Portfolio v. \u003cstrong\u003eQualcomm \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(District of Delaware) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent case involving semiconductor and chipset technology\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuest Software \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. Centrify Corporation \u003c/em\u003e(District of Utah and Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Quest in dual patent infringement actions involving authentication software for large computer networks\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinisar v. \u003cstrong\u003eOplink Communications \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; counsel for Oplink against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit concerning optical transceivers and microcontrollers\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Eutermoser","nick_name":"Brian","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Brian","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":1406,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2006-01-01 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":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian is\u0026nbsp;a trial attorney who specializes in patent disputes and other complex litigation in state and federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.\u0026nbsp; He routinely represents clients in high-stakes cases\u0026nbsp;involving injunctive relief and hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian's practice focuses on complex patent litigation and \u003cem\u003einter partes \u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings across a wide variety of technologies, including medical devices, enterprise hardware and software, wireless communications, website development, semiconductors, and LEDs.\u0026nbsp; He has experience in all aspects of patent litigation, including developing and implementing case strategies, managing day-to-day discovery and client communications, motion practice, fact and expert depositions, oral argument, trial preparation, and post-trial and appellate briefing.\u0026nbsp; In addition to patent disputes, Brian has litigated trade secret, employment, and contract cases in\u0026nbsp;state and federal courts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMedline Industries\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e v. C.R. Bard \u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of Illinois) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Medline in multiple district court actions involving urology products and procedures\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Lawrence Communications v. \u003cstrong\u003eMotorola Mobility \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Eastern District of Texas) \u0026ndash; trial counsel for Motorola in a patent case involving speech coders used in cellular communications\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinjan v. \u003cstrong\u003ePalo Alto Networks \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Patent Trial and Appeal Board) \u0026ndash; counsel for Palo Alto Networks in \u003cem\u003einter partes \u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings involving malware detection software\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpen Text \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. Box.com \u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; trial counsel for Open Text in a patent infringement action involving cloud storage systems\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eT3 Media v. \u003cstrong\u003eBBC Worldwide \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(District of Colorado) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for the BBC in a media rights licensing dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHSM Portfolio v. \u003cstrong\u003eQualcomm \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(District of Delaware) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent case involving semiconductor and chipset technology\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuest Software \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. Centrify Corporation \u003c/em\u003e(District of Utah and Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; litigation counsel for Quest in dual patent infringement actions involving authentication software for large computer networks\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinisar v. \u003cstrong\u003eOplink Communications \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Northern District of California) \u0026ndash; counsel for Oplink against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit concerning optical transceivers and microcontrollers\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5952}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:14.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:14.000Z","searchable_text":"Eutermoser{{ FIELD }}Medline Industries v. C.R. Bard (Northern District of Illinois) – litigation counsel for Medline in multiple district court actions involving urology products and procedures{{ FIELD }}St. Lawrence Communications v. Motorola Mobility (Eastern District of Texas) – trial counsel for Motorola in a patent case involving speech coders used in cellular communications{{ FIELD }}Finjan v. Palo Alto Networks (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) – counsel for Palo Alto Networks in inter partes review proceedings involving malware detection software{{ FIELD }}Open Text v. Box.com (Northern District of California) – trial counsel for Open Text in a patent infringement action involving cloud storage systems{{ FIELD }}T3 Media v. BBC Worldwide (District of Colorado) – litigation counsel for the BBC in a media rights licensing dispute{{ FIELD }}HSM Portfolio v. Qualcomm (District of Delaware) – litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent case involving semiconductor and chipset technology{{ FIELD }}Quest Software v. Centrify Corporation (District of Utah and Northern District of California) – litigation counsel for Quest in dual patent infringement actions involving authentication software for large computer networks{{ FIELD }}Finisar v. Oplink Communications (Northern District of California) – counsel for Oplink against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit concerning optical transceivers and microcontrollers{{ FIELD }}Brian is a trial attorney who specializes in patent disputes and other complex litigation in state and federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  He routinely represents clients in high-stakes cases involving injunctive relief and hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damages. \nBrian's practice focuses on complex patent litigation and inter partes review proceedings across a wide variety of technologies, including medical devices, enterprise hardware and software, wireless communications, website development, semiconductors, and LEDs.  He has experience in all aspects of patent litigation, including developing and implementing case strategies, managing day-to-day discovery and client communications, motion practice, fact and expert depositions, oral argument, trial preparation, and post-trial and appellate briefing.  In addition to patent disputes, Brian has litigated trade secret, employment, and contract cases in state and federal courts.  Partner Washington and Lee University Washington and Lee University School of Law New York University New York University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Colorado New York American Bar Association Federal Circuit Bar Association Medline Industries v. C.R. Bard (Northern District of Illinois) – litigation counsel for Medline in multiple district court actions involving urology products and procedures St. Lawrence Communications v. Motorola Mobility (Eastern District of Texas) – trial counsel for Motorola in a patent case involving speech coders used in cellular communications Finjan v. Palo Alto Networks (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) – counsel for Palo Alto Networks in inter partes review proceedings involving malware detection software Open Text v. Box.com (Northern District of California) – trial counsel for Open Text in a patent infringement action involving cloud storage systems T3 Media v. BBC Worldwide (District of Colorado) – litigation counsel for the BBC in a media rights licensing dispute HSM Portfolio v. Qualcomm (District of Delaware) – litigation counsel for Qualcomm in a patent case involving semiconductor and chipset technology Quest Software v. Centrify Corporation (District of Utah and Northern District of California) – litigation counsel for Quest in dual patent infringement actions involving authentication software for large computer networks Finisar v. Oplink Communications (Northern District of California) – counsel for Oplink against a major competitor in a patent infringement suit concerning optical transceivers and microcontrollers","searchable_name":"Brian Eutermoser","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}]}}