{"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":"Real Estate","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":"cg-3","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"M","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":446873,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5475,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGiorgio Mandelli is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s International Arbitration Practice Group, based in London.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiorgio\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on complex, high-value international dispute resolution. He specialises in international arbitration (both commercial and investment arbitration), with a particular focus on representing companies and investors in disputes in the energy and natural resources, financial services and aviation sectors. He has acted as counsel and advocate before \u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e and institutional international arbitration tribunals, including under the ICC, ICSID, ICSID Additional Facility, DIFC-LCIA, LCIA, SIAC, SCC, and UNCITRAL Rules.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost recently, Giorgio has worked on a number of high-profile commercial arbitrations and investment disputes involving African, European, Latin American and Middle Eastern States, arising variously under international investment agreements and treaties, foreign investment laws and contracts. Additionally, Giorgio provides counsel on public international law matters, including advising States on jurisdictional immunity issues in the context of judicial proceedings before European courts, and he has delivered practical training in public international law to lawyers from various ministries of States in the Middle East and Africa. Currently, Giorgio\u0026nbsp;is sitting as a party-appointed arbitrator in a Stockholm Chamber of Commerce investor-State arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiorgio is qualified as a solicitor-advocate in England and Wales and admitted to practice in New York. He was \u0026ldquo;recommended\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e 2014 (Latin America) and described as a \u0026ldquo;rising star\u0026rdquo; in the \u003cem\u003eGAR 100\u003c/em\u003e (9th, 10th and 11th editions). He was included in \u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e inaugural listing of the \u0026ldquo;Future Leaders of International Arbitration \u0026ndash; Partners\u0026rdquo; (2017) and, again, in 2018. He also was mentioned as: \u0026ldquo;highly rated\u0026rdquo; for public international law and international arbitration by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 UK 2017;\u003c/em\u003e a \u0026ldquo;name to note\u0026rdquo; in public international law and international arbitration by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 UK 2019\u003c/em\u003e; noted for international arbitration in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 UK 2020;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and \"great for case management\" in international arbitration in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 UK 2026\u003c/em\u003e. Giorgio has been included in the \u003cem\u003e2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide, \u003c/em\u003ethe \u003cem\u003e2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide \u003c/em\u003eand the \u003cem\u003e2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiorgio is a regular speaker at conferences on topics of public international law and international dispute resolution and writes on international investment law and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; Most recently, Giorgio spoke on \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eRush to Judgment:\u0026nbsp; Speed v Fairness in Emergency Arbitration Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; at the ArbIt (Italian Forum for Arbitration and ADR) Conference in Milano.\u0026nbsp; Giorgio is a member of the Delos\u0026nbsp;ROAP faculty and of the FIAA faculty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"giorgio-mandelli","email":"gmandelli@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArbitrator Appointment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAppointed by the claimant in an investor-State arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSelected Investor-State Arbitration Matters\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an Italian company in an ICSID arbitration against North Macedonia arising from its investment in a waste disposal enterprise\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a UK metal trading company in an ICSID arbitration against Sierra Leone stemming from its investment in the mining sector\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented subsidiaries of a major U.S. glass manufacturer in two ICSID arbitrations, and subsequent annulment proceedings, against Venezuela\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Liechtenstein blood plasma trading company and its Swiss owner in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ean ad hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;investment treaty arbitration against the Czech Republic\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Luxembourg company in an SCC investment treaty arbitration against Poland stemming from its equity investment in a Polish bank\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. oil company in a multibillion-dollar ICSID arbitration against Venezuela\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Canadian mining company in a multibillion-dollar ICSID Additional Facility arbitration against Venezuela\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a European energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina stemming from its investments in oil and gas exploration and production, electricity generation and gas transportation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a US energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador stemming from the exploration and production of hydrocarbons\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a leading European polymer products producer in an ICSID arbitration against a Latin American State\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the subsidiaries of a major US conglomerate in an ICSID arbitration (and in annulment proceedings) against Venezuela stemming from their investment in the energy industry\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an African State in an ICSID arbitration brought in relation to an investment in the telecommunications sector\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSelected International Commercial Arbitration Matters\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an Indian airline in both a SIAC emergency arbitration and a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer; English governing law\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a BVI company in a DIFC-LCIA arbitration against two Middle Eastern entities concerning a joint venture in the defence aviation sector; English governing law\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an Indian multinational in proceedings stemming from an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;arbitration award relating to a gas-sector production sharing contract; Indian governing law\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the African subsidiary of a UK commodity trading business in an ICC arbitration against an African State relating to an iron ore project\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the Dutch subsidiary of a US energy sector company in an UNCITRAL arbitration against an Indian company relating to a joint venture for the manufacturing and marketing of steam turbine products\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a European chemical company in an ICC arbitration against a European general contractor stemming from the design and construction of a technical ammonium nitrate manufacturing plant in Australia\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a European energy sector company in an LCIA arbitration against another European energy company involving a dispute under a sales contract and a related settlement agreement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. oil company in an ICC arbitration against a Latin American State-owned oil entity regarding a joint venture dispute governed by New York law\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. oil company in consolidated ICC arbitrations against a Latin American State-owned oil entity arising under guarantees and in connection with production curtailments imposed on two extra-heavy oil projects\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSelected Advisory Work\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising the local subsidiary of a Mauritian company with respect to a potential LCIA arbitration and/or investor-State arbitration against an African State stemming from the development, construction and operation of a power project\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an investor with respect to a potential, mining-sector investment dispute against a European State\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an investor with respect to a potential, gas-sector investment dispute against a Latin American State\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a Europe-based, integrated, international oil and gas company on issues arising from a joint venture relationship in Pakistan\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a G8 State in a number of domestic judicial proceedings on issues of sovereign immunity arising from a number of employment relationships in receiving European States\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a G20 State on a wide range of public international law issues and taught PIL courses to lawyers from various ministries\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mandelli","nick_name":"Giorgio","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Giorgio","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1406,"meta":{"degree":"LL.M.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2007-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":2,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Francesco","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"A “rising star”","detail":"GAR 100 (9TH, 10TH, 11TH EDITIONS), 2016, 2017 AND 2018"},{"title":"Future Leaders of International Arbitration – Partners","detail":"WHO’S WHO LEGAL, 2017 AND 2018"},{"title":"Recommended","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 (LATIN AMERICA), 2014"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGiorgio Mandelli is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s International Arbitration Practice Group, based in London.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiorgio\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on complex, high-value international dispute resolution. He specialises in international arbitration (both commercial and investment arbitration), with a particular focus on representing companies and investors in disputes in the energy and natural resources, financial services and aviation sectors. He has acted as counsel and advocate before \u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e and institutional international arbitration tribunals, including under the ICC, ICSID, ICSID Additional Facility, DIFC-LCIA, LCIA, SIAC, SCC, and UNCITRAL Rules.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost recently, Giorgio has worked on a number of high-profile commercial arbitrations and investment disputes involving African, European, Latin American and Middle Eastern States, arising variously under international investment agreements and treaties, foreign investment laws and contracts. Additionally, Giorgio provides counsel on public international law matters, including advising States on jurisdictional immunity issues in the context of judicial proceedings before European courts, and he has delivered practical training in public international law to lawyers from various ministries of States in the Middle East and Africa. Currently, Giorgio\u0026nbsp;is sitting as a party-appointed arbitrator in a Stockholm Chamber of Commerce investor-State arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiorgio is qualified as a solicitor-advocate in England and Wales and admitted to practice in New York. He was \u0026ldquo;recommended\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e 2014 (Latin America) and described as a \u0026ldquo;rising star\u0026rdquo; in the \u003cem\u003eGAR 100\u003c/em\u003e (9th, 10th and 11th editions). He was included in \u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e inaugural listing of the \u0026ldquo;Future Leaders of International Arbitration \u0026ndash; Partners\u0026rdquo; (2017) and, again, in 2018. He also was mentioned as: \u0026ldquo;highly rated\u0026rdquo; for public international law and international arbitration by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 UK 2017;\u003c/em\u003e a \u0026ldquo;name to note\u0026rdquo; in public international law and international arbitration by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 UK 2019\u003c/em\u003e; noted for international arbitration in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 UK 2020;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and \"great for case management\" in international arbitration in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 UK 2026\u003c/em\u003e. Giorgio has been included in the \u003cem\u003e2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide, \u003c/em\u003ethe \u003cem\u003e2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide \u003c/em\u003eand the \u003cem\u003e2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiorgio is a regular speaker at conferences on topics of public international law and international dispute resolution and writes on international investment law and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; Most recently, Giorgio spoke on \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eRush to Judgment:\u0026nbsp; Speed v Fairness in Emergency Arbitration Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; at the ArbIt (Italian Forum for Arbitration and ADR) Conference in Milano.\u0026nbsp; Giorgio is a member of the Delos\u0026nbsp;ROAP faculty and of the FIAA faculty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArbitrator Appointment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAppointed by the claimant in an investor-State arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSelected Investor-State Arbitration Matters\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an Italian company in an ICSID arbitration against North Macedonia arising from its investment in a waste disposal enterprise\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a UK metal trading company in an ICSID arbitration against Sierra Leone stemming from its investment in the mining sector\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented subsidiaries of a major U.S. glass manufacturer in two ICSID arbitrations, and subsequent annulment proceedings, against Venezuela\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Liechtenstein blood plasma trading company and its Swiss owner in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ean ad hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;investment treaty arbitration against the Czech Republic\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Luxembourg company in an SCC investment treaty arbitration against Poland stemming from its equity investment in a Polish bank\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. oil company in a multibillion-dollar ICSID arbitration against Venezuela\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Canadian mining company in a multibillion-dollar ICSID Additional Facility arbitration against Venezuela\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a European energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina stemming from its investments in oil and gas exploration and production, electricity generation and gas transportation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a US energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador stemming from the exploration and production of hydrocarbons\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a leading European polymer products producer in an ICSID arbitration against a Latin American State\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the subsidiaries of a major US conglomerate in an ICSID arbitration (and in annulment proceedings) against Venezuela stemming from their investment in the energy industry\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an African State in an ICSID arbitration brought in relation to an investment in the telecommunications sector\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSelected International Commercial Arbitration Matters\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an Indian airline in both a SIAC emergency arbitration and a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer; English governing law\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a BVI company in a DIFC-LCIA arbitration against two Middle Eastern entities concerning a joint venture in the defence aviation sector; English governing law\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an Indian multinational in proceedings stemming from an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;arbitration award relating to a gas-sector production sharing contract; Indian governing law\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the African subsidiary of a UK commodity trading business in an ICC arbitration against an African State relating to an iron ore project\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the Dutch subsidiary of a US energy sector company in an UNCITRAL arbitration against an Indian company relating to a joint venture for the manufacturing and marketing of steam turbine products\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a European chemical company in an ICC arbitration against a European general contractor stemming from the design and construction of a technical ammonium nitrate manufacturing plant in Australia\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a European energy sector company in an LCIA arbitration against another European energy company involving a dispute under a sales contract and a related settlement agreement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. oil company in an ICC arbitration against a Latin American State-owned oil entity regarding a joint venture dispute governed by New York law\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. oil company in consolidated ICC arbitrations against a Latin American State-owned oil entity arising under guarantees and in connection with production curtailments imposed on two extra-heavy oil projects\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSelected Advisory Work\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising the local subsidiary of a Mauritian company with respect to a potential LCIA arbitration and/or investor-State arbitration against an African State stemming from the development, construction and operation of a power project\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an investor with respect to a potential, mining-sector investment dispute against a European State\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an investor with respect to a potential, gas-sector investment dispute against a Latin American State\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a Europe-based, integrated, international oil and gas company on issues arising from a joint venture relationship in Pakistan\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a G8 State in a number of domestic judicial proceedings on issues of sovereign immunity arising from a number of employment relationships in receiving European States\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a G20 State on a wide range of public international law issues and taught PIL courses to lawyers from various ministries\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"A “rising star”","detail":"GAR 100 (9TH, 10TH, 11TH EDITIONS), 2016, 2017 AND 2018"},{"title":"Future Leaders of International Arbitration – Partners","detail":"WHO’S WHO LEGAL, 2017 AND 2018"},{"title":"Recommended","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 (LATIN AMERICA), 2014"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9970}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-19T20:53:13.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-19T20:53:13.000Z","searchable_text":"Mandelli{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"A “rising star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"GAR 100 (9TH, 10TH, 11TH EDITIONS), 2016, 2017 AND 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Leaders of International Arbitration – Partners\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"WHO’S WHO LEGAL, 2017 AND 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE LEGAL 500 (LATIN AMERICA), 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}Arbitrator Appointment\nAppointed by the claimant in an investor-State arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty{{ FIELD }}Selected Investor-State Arbitration Matters\nRepresenting an Italian company in an ICSID arbitration against North Macedonia arising from its investment in a waste disposal enterprise{{ FIELD }}Represented a UK metal trading company in an ICSID arbitration against Sierra Leone stemming from its investment in the mining sector{{ FIELD }}Represented subsidiaries of a major U.S. glass manufacturer in two ICSID arbitrations, and subsequent annulment proceedings, against Venezuela{{ FIELD }}Represented a Liechtenstein blood plasma trading company and its Swiss owner in an ad hoc investment treaty arbitration against the Czech Republic{{ FIELD }}Represented a Luxembourg company in an SCC investment treaty arbitration against Poland stemming from its equity investment in a Polish bank{{ FIELD }}Represented a major U.S. oil company in a multibillion-dollar ICSID arbitration against Venezuela{{ FIELD }}Represented a Canadian mining company in a multibillion-dollar ICSID Additional Facility arbitration against Venezuela{{ FIELD }}Represented a European energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina stemming from its investments in oil and gas exploration and production, electricity generation and gas transportation{{ FIELD }}Represented a US energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador stemming from the exploration and production of hydrocarbons{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading European polymer products producer in an ICSID arbitration against a Latin American State{{ FIELD }}Represented the subsidiaries of a major US conglomerate in an ICSID arbitration (and in annulment proceedings) against Venezuela stemming from their investment in the energy industry{{ FIELD }}Represented an African State in an ICSID arbitration brought in relation to an investment in the telecommunications sector{{ FIELD }}Selected International Commercial Arbitration Matters\nRepresenting an Indian airline in both a SIAC emergency arbitration and a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer; English governing law{{ FIELD }}Representing a BVI company in a DIFC-LCIA arbitration against two Middle Eastern entities concerning a joint venture in the defence aviation sector; English governing law{{ FIELD }}Representing an Indian multinational in proceedings stemming from an ad hoc arbitration award relating to a gas-sector production sharing contract; Indian governing law{{ FIELD }}Represented the African subsidiary of a UK commodity trading business in an ICC arbitration against an African State relating to an iron ore project{{ FIELD }}Representing the Dutch subsidiary of a US energy sector company in an UNCITRAL arbitration against an Indian company relating to a joint venture for the manufacturing and marketing of steam turbine products{{ FIELD }}Representing a European chemical company in an ICC arbitration against a European general contractor stemming from the design and construction of a technical ammonium nitrate manufacturing plant in Australia{{ FIELD }}Represented a European energy sector company in an LCIA arbitration against another European energy company involving a dispute under a sales contract and a related settlement agreement{{ FIELD }}Represented a major U.S. oil company in an ICC arbitration against a Latin American State-owned oil entity regarding a joint venture dispute governed by New York law{{ FIELD }}Represented a major U.S. oil company in consolidated ICC arbitrations against a Latin American State-owned oil entity arising under guarantees and in connection with production curtailments imposed on two extra-heavy oil projects{{ FIELD }}Selected Advisory Work\nAdvising the local subsidiary of a Mauritian company with respect to a potential LCIA arbitration and/or investor-State arbitration against an African State stemming from the development, construction and operation of a power project{{ FIELD }}Advising an investor with respect to a potential, mining-sector investment dispute against a European State{{ FIELD }}Advising an investor with respect to a potential, gas-sector investment dispute against a Latin American State{{ FIELD }}Advised a Europe-based, integrated, international oil and gas company on issues arising from a joint venture relationship in Pakistan{{ FIELD }}Represented a G8 State in a number of domestic judicial proceedings on issues of sovereign immunity arising from a number of employment relationships in receiving European States{{ FIELD }}Advised a G20 State on a wide range of public international law issues and taught PIL courses to lawyers from various ministries{{ FIELD }}Giorgio Mandelli is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s International Arbitration Practice Group, based in London.\nGiorgio’s practice focuses on complex, high-value international dispute resolution. He specialises in international arbitration (both commercial and investment arbitration), with a particular focus on representing companies and investors in disputes in the energy and natural resources, financial services and aviation sectors. He has acted as counsel and advocate before ad hoc and institutional international arbitration tribunals, including under the ICC, ICSID, ICSID Additional Facility, DIFC-LCIA, LCIA, SIAC, SCC, and UNCITRAL Rules. \nMost recently, Giorgio has worked on a number of high-profile commercial arbitrations and investment disputes involving African, European, Latin American and Middle Eastern States, arising variously under international investment agreements and treaties, foreign investment laws and contracts. Additionally, Giorgio provides counsel on public international law matters, including advising States on jurisdictional immunity issues in the context of judicial proceedings before European courts, and he has delivered practical training in public international law to lawyers from various ministries of States in the Middle East and Africa. Currently, Giorgio is sitting as a party-appointed arbitrator in a Stockholm Chamber of Commerce investor-State arbitration.\nGiorgio is qualified as a solicitor-advocate in England and Wales and admitted to practice in New York. He was “recommended” by The Legal 500 2014 (Latin America) and described as a “rising star” in the GAR 100 (9th, 10th and 11th editions). He was included in Who’s Who Legal’s inaugural listing of the “Future Leaders of International Arbitration – Partners” (2017) and, again, in 2018. He also was mentioned as: “highly rated” for public international law and international arbitration by The Legal 500 UK 2017; a “name to note” in public international law and international arbitration by The Legal 500 UK 2019; noted for international arbitration in The Legal 500 UK 2020; and \"great for case management\" in international arbitration in The Legal 500 UK 2026. Giorgio has been included in the 2023 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide, the 2024 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide and the 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators Guide.\nGiorgio is a regular speaker at conferences on topics of public international law and international dispute resolution and writes on international investment law and arbitration.  Most recently, Giorgio spoke on “Rush to Judgment:  Speed v Fairness in Emergency Arbitration Proceedings” at the ArbIt (Italian Forum for Arbitration and ADR) Conference in Milano.  Giorgio is a member of the Delos ROAP faculty and of the FIAA faculty.\n  Partner A “rising star” GAR 100 (9TH, 10TH, 11TH EDITIONS), 2016, 2017 AND 2018 Future Leaders of International Arbitration – Partners WHO’S WHO LEGAL, 2017 AND 2018 Recommended THE LEGAL 500 (LATIN AMERICA), 2014 Princeton University  The University of Oxford   New York University New York University School of Law New York England and Wales Arbitrator Appointment\nAppointed by the claimant in an investor-State arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty Selected Investor-State Arbitration Matters\nRepresenting an Italian company in an ICSID arbitration against North Macedonia arising from its investment in a waste disposal enterprise Represented a UK metal trading company in an ICSID arbitration against Sierra Leone stemming from its investment in the mining sector Represented subsidiaries of a major U.S. glass manufacturer in two ICSID arbitrations, and subsequent annulment proceedings, against Venezuela Represented a Liechtenstein blood plasma trading company and its Swiss owner in an ad hoc investment treaty arbitration against the Czech Republic Represented a Luxembourg company in an SCC investment treaty arbitration against Poland stemming from its equity investment in a Polish bank Represented a major U.S. oil company in a multibillion-dollar ICSID arbitration against Venezuela Represented a Canadian mining company in a multibillion-dollar ICSID Additional Facility arbitration against Venezuela Represented a European energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina stemming from its investments in oil and gas exploration and production, electricity generation and gas transportation Represented a US energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador stemming from the exploration and production of hydrocarbons Represented a leading European polymer products producer in an ICSID arbitration against a Latin American State Represented the subsidiaries of a major US conglomerate in an ICSID arbitration (and in annulment proceedings) against Venezuela stemming from their investment in the energy industry Represented an African State in an ICSID arbitration brought in relation to an investment in the telecommunications sector Selected International Commercial Arbitration Matters\nRepresenting an Indian airline in both a SIAC emergency arbitration and a SIAC arbitration against a US engine manufacturer; English governing law Representing a BVI company in a DIFC-LCIA arbitration against two Middle Eastern entities concerning a joint venture in the defence aviation sector; English governing law Representing an Indian multinational in proceedings stemming from an ad hoc arbitration award relating to a gas-sector production sharing contract; Indian governing law Represented the African subsidiary of a UK commodity trading business in an ICC arbitration against an African State relating to an iron ore project Representing the Dutch subsidiary of a US energy sector company in an UNCITRAL arbitration against an Indian company relating to a joint venture for the manufacturing and marketing of steam turbine products Representing a European chemical company in an ICC arbitration against a European general contractor stemming from the design and construction of a technical ammonium nitrate manufacturing plant in Australia Represented a European energy sector company in an LCIA arbitration against another European energy company involving a dispute under a sales contract and a related settlement agreement Represented a major U.S. oil company in an ICC arbitration against a Latin American State-owned oil entity regarding a joint venture dispute governed by New York law Represented a major U.S. oil company in consolidated ICC arbitrations against a Latin American State-owned oil entity arising under guarantees and in connection with production curtailments imposed on two extra-heavy oil projects Selected Advisory Work\nAdvising the local subsidiary of a Mauritian company with respect to a potential LCIA arbitration and/or investor-State arbitration against an African State stemming from the development, construction and operation of a power project Advising an investor with respect to a potential, mining-sector investment dispute against a European State Advising an investor with respect to a potential, gas-sector investment dispute against a Latin American State Advised a Europe-based, integrated, international oil and gas company on issues arising from a joint venture relationship in Pakistan Represented a G8 State in a number of domestic judicial proceedings on issues of sovereign immunity arising from a number of employment relationships in receiving European States Advised a G20 State on a wide range of public international law issues and taught PIL courses to lawyers from various ministries","searchable_name":"Giorgio Francesco Mandelli","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":445532,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7304,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRex Mann is a trial lawyer who focuses his practice on patent litigation and other complex commercial litigation matters. Although his patent litigation practice is nationwide, he has extensive experience specifically in patent-heavy districts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. On commercial matters he often represents technology companies or works on matters involving complex technology, and his background in engineering enables him to deeply understand clients\u0026rsquo; technologies and businesses to help them better achieve their goals. Rex\u0026rsquo;s work continues to garner him honors from legal publications such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026reg;\u003c/sup\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;IAM Patent 1000, Lawdragon\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s intellectual property practice primarily consists of complex patent and trade secret litigation. He has handled bet-the-company patent and trade secret matters, including taking them to trial, and winning. Outside of litigation, he advises his clients on technology licensing issues, policies relating to intellectual property, and targeted patent prosecution advice relating to licensing and litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Rex\u0026rsquo;s patent litigation practice is heavily concentrated on matters arising in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. In fact, he began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable T. John Ward in the Eastern District of Texas, where he gained significant experience in federal trial practice and patent litigation, given the district\u0026rsquo;s intense patent trial docket.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex has significant trial experience and has tried more than 20 cases or arbitrations as first chair or in an otherwise stand-up role, and he has experience in all phases of trial. In addition to his civil trial work, Rex spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where he tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict and obtained a guilty verdict in each one.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s commercial litigation practice has included a wide variety of matters, including breach of contract, business torts, consumer class actions, RICO violations, securities laws violations, whistleblower or False Claims Act litigation, employment, fraud, suits against the government or government officials, and other related disputes. Given his background in engineering, the work Rex does for his commercial clients often involves technology issues. Moreover, his undergraduate and graduate degrees in civil and environmental engineering are helpful when working on matters in the environmental and oil and gas industries.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"rex-mann","email":"rmann@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites\u0026mdash;a win that\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAm Law\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognized with a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s technical experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD)\u003c/strong\u003e in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron\u0026nbsp;Elliot\u0026rsquo;s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eFlypsi\u003c/strong\u003e, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google\u0026rsquo;s expert and company representative at trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic\u0026rsquo;s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eRyan Hardin and Andrew Hill\u003c/strong\u003e, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues, the case settled days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFreshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) Lead counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eFreshworks\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSieler v. Atieva Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eAtieva Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMatch Group v. Muzmatch Limited\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client \u003cstrong\u003eUnbnd\u003c/strong\u003e and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party\u0026rsquo;s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd\u0026rsquo;s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Utah) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eLifeVantage\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees against the claimant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-\u003cstrong\u003eNFL player\u003c/strong\u003e in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRanieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eAdvoCare\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Woodbridge Investments Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProphet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCrothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrady\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eRysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital\u003c/strong\u003e as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNash Bridges\u003c/em\u003e. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eSabre\u003c/strong\u003e and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers\u0026rsquo; failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mann","nick_name":"Rex","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable T. John Ward, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Rex","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"high honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2024-2025"},{"title":"Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Ranked by IAM Patent 1000","detail":"2025"},{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law","detail":"Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023"},{"title":"“Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026"},{"title":"“Texas Lawyer on the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2020"},{"title":"“Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Rising Star”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2016–2024"},{"title":"Order of the Chancellors","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Barristers","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRex Mann is a trial lawyer who focuses his practice on patent litigation and other complex commercial litigation matters. Although his patent litigation practice is nationwide, he has extensive experience specifically in patent-heavy districts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. On commercial matters he often represents technology companies or works on matters involving complex technology, and his background in engineering enables him to deeply understand clients\u0026rsquo; technologies and businesses to help them better achieve their goals. Rex\u0026rsquo;s work continues to garner him honors from legal publications such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026reg;\u003c/sup\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;IAM Patent 1000, Lawdragon\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s intellectual property practice primarily consists of complex patent and trade secret litigation. He has handled bet-the-company patent and trade secret matters, including taking them to trial, and winning. Outside of litigation, he advises his clients on technology licensing issues, policies relating to intellectual property, and targeted patent prosecution advice relating to licensing and litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Rex\u0026rsquo;s patent litigation practice is heavily concentrated on matters arising in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. In fact, he began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable T. John Ward in the Eastern District of Texas, where he gained significant experience in federal trial practice and patent litigation, given the district\u0026rsquo;s intense patent trial docket.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex has significant trial experience and has tried more than 20 cases or arbitrations as first chair or in an otherwise stand-up role, and he has experience in all phases of trial. In addition to his civil trial work, Rex spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where he tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict and obtained a guilty verdict in each one.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s commercial litigation practice has included a wide variety of matters, including breach of contract, business torts, consumer class actions, RICO violations, securities laws violations, whistleblower or False Claims Act litigation, employment, fraud, suits against the government or government officials, and other related disputes. Given his background in engineering, the work Rex does for his commercial clients often involves technology issues. Moreover, his undergraduate and graduate degrees in civil and environmental engineering are helpful when working on matters in the environmental and oil and gas industries.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites\u0026mdash;a win that\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAm Law\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognized with a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s technical experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD)\u003c/strong\u003e in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron\u0026nbsp;Elliot\u0026rsquo;s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eFlypsi\u003c/strong\u003e, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google\u0026rsquo;s expert and company representative at trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic\u0026rsquo;s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eRyan Hardin and Andrew Hill\u003c/strong\u003e, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues, the case settled days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFreshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) Lead counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eFreshworks\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSieler v. Atieva Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eAtieva Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMatch Group v. Muzmatch Limited\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client \u003cstrong\u003eUnbnd\u003c/strong\u003e and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party\u0026rsquo;s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd\u0026rsquo;s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Utah) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eLifeVantage\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees against the claimant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-\u003cstrong\u003eNFL player\u003c/strong\u003e in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRanieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eAdvoCare\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Woodbridge Investments Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProphet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCrothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrady\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eRysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital\u003c/strong\u003e as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNash Bridges\u003c/em\u003e. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eSabre\u003c/strong\u003e and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers\u0026rsquo; failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2024-2025"},{"title":"Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Ranked by IAM Patent 1000","detail":"2025"},{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law","detail":"Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023"},{"title":"“Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026"},{"title":"“Texas Lawyer on the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2020"},{"title":"“Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Rising Star”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2016–2024"},{"title":"Order of the Chancellors","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Barristers","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13343}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:53.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Mann{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2024-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Patexia, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked by IAM Patent 1000\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Future Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Texas Lawyer on the Rise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2019–2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2016–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Chancellors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Texas School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Coif\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Texas School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Barristers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Texas School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}Patent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation{{ FIELD }}Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for U.S. Well Services in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services’ fracturing sites—a win that Am Law recognized with a “Litigator of the Week” first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton’s technical experts.{{ FIELD }}In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot’s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial.{{ FIELD }}Flypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff Flypsi, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google’s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google’s expert and company representative at trial.{{ FIELD }}TMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant Medtronic in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic’s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.{{ FIELD }}Hardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Ryan Hardin and Andrew Hill, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and Daubert issues, the case settled days before trial.{{ FIELD }}Freshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC (D. Del.) Lead counsel for Freshworks in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.{{ FIELD }}Sieler v. Atieva Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for Atieva Inc. in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.{{ FIELD }}Match Group v. Muzmatch Limited (W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.{{ FIELD }}Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al. (E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement.{{ FIELD }}Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Matters{{ FIELD }}Unbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al. (FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client Unbnd and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party’s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd’s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award.{{ FIELD }}Smith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al. (D. Utah) Counsel for defendant LifeVantage in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied.{{ FIELD }}Confidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys’ fees against the claimant.{{ FIELD }}Confidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-NFL player in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment.{{ FIELD }}Ranieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al. (N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant AdvoCare in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.{{ FIELD }}United States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act.{{ FIELD }}Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.{{ FIELD }}Fee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al. (Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation (C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing.{{ FIELD }}Prophet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company (5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.{{ FIELD }}Crothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al. (D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various Brady violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase.{{ FIELD }}Rysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc. (L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented Rysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series Nash Bridges. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.{{ FIELD }}Sabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al. (N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented Sabre and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers’ failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.{{ FIELD }}Rex Mann is a trial lawyer who focuses his practice on patent litigation and other complex commercial litigation matters. Although his patent litigation practice is nationwide, he has extensive experience specifically in patent-heavy districts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. On commercial matters he often represents technology companies or works on matters involving complex technology, and his background in engineering enables him to deeply understand clients’ technologies and businesses to help them better achieve their goals. Rex’s work continues to garner him honors from legal publications such as The Best Lawyers in America®, IAM Patent 1000, Lawdragon, and Benchmark Litigation.\nRex’s intellectual property practice primarily consists of complex patent and trade secret litigation. He has handled bet-the-company patent and trade secret matters, including taking them to trial, and winning. Outside of litigation, he advises his clients on technology licensing issues, policies relating to intellectual property, and targeted patent prosecution advice relating to licensing and litigation.\n“Rex’s patent litigation practice is heavily concentrated on matters arising in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. In fact, he began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable T. John Ward in the Eastern District of Texas, where he gained significant experience in federal trial practice and patent litigation, given the district’s intense patent trial docket.\nRex has significant trial experience and has tried more than 20 cases or arbitrations as first chair or in an otherwise stand-up role, and he has experience in all phases of trial. In addition to his civil trial work, Rex spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where he tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict and obtained a guilty verdict in each one.\nRex’s commercial litigation practice has included a wide variety of matters, including breach of contract, business torts, consumer class actions, RICO violations, securities laws violations, whistleblower or False Claims Act litigation, employment, fraud, suits against the government or government officials, and other related disputes. Given his background in engineering, the work Rex does for his commercial clients often involves technology issues. Moreover, his undergraduate and graduate degrees in civil and environmental engineering are helpful when working on matters in the environmental and oil and gas industries. Partner Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2024-2025 Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report Patexia, 2024–2025 Ranked by IAM Patent 1000 2025 Litigation – Intellectual Property The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026 Litigation – Patent The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023 “Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers” Lawdragon, 2023–2025 “Future Star” Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026 “Texas Lawyer on the Rise”  Texas Lawyer, 2020 “Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars” Super Lawyers, 2019–2021 “Rising Star” Super Lawyers, 2016–2024 Order of the Chancellors University of Texas School of Law Order of the Coif University of Texas School of Law Order of the Barristers University of Texas School of Law Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law Texas Board of Trustees, Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center, 2016–2022 Board Member, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, 2017–2018 District 6 Grievance Committee Member, State Bar of Texas, 2015–2018 Co-Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, 2015–2017 Co-Chair of the Business and Career Development Committee, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, 2015–2016 Law Clerk, Honorable T. John Ward, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Patent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for U.S. Well Services in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services’ fracturing sites—a win that Am Law recognized with a “Litigator of the Week” first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton’s technical experts. In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot’s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial. Flypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff Flypsi, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google’s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google’s expert and company representative at trial. TMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant Medtronic in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic’s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement. Hardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Ryan Hardin and Andrew Hill, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and Daubert issues, the case settled days before trial. Freshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC (D. Del.) Lead counsel for Freshworks in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled. Sieler v. Atieva Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for Atieva Inc. in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva. Match Group v. Muzmatch Limited (W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution. Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al. (E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement. Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants. Commercial Litigation and Other Matters Unbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al. (FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client Unbnd and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party’s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd’s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award. Smith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al. (D. Utah) Counsel for defendant LifeVantage in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied. Confidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys’ fees against the claimant. Confidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-NFL player in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment. Ranieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al. (N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant AdvoCare in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery. United States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act. Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer. Fee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al. (Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial. In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation (C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing. Prophet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company (5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Crothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al. (D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various Brady violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase. Rysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc. (L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented Rysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series Nash Bridges. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages. Sabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al. (N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented Sabre and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers’ failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.","searchable_name":"Rex A. Mann","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447464,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":894,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRichard Marooney is Managing Partner of the New York office and one of the practice leaders of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice. He is an experienced trial lawyer who has tried cases before juries, judges and arbitration panels. His practice focuses on complex litigation, securities, general commercial and international disputes in the financial services, accounting and energy industries.\u0026nbsp; He represents both plaintiffs and defendants. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003ehas identified Rich as one of the top litigators in New York, where it states that he is \"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\"\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognizes Rich as a top M\u0026amp;A litigator, stating he is \"a consummate trial lawyer, quick on his feet....\"\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation \u003c/em\u003eranks Rich as a National Practice Area Star.\u0026nbsp; In 2017, \u003cem\u003eBenchmark\u003c/em\u003e named him General Commercial Attorney of the Year and one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America. \u0026nbsp;He has been recognized as a Litigator of the Week by \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and is a New York Super Lawyer. Rich has served two terms on both the firm's Policy Committee and Compensation Committee.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"richard-marooney","email":"rmarooney@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eKPMG\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eEY LLP (UK)\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation concerning NMC Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending financial services company in DE Chancery in connection with a post-purchase M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend former CEO of Indivior in a securities class action in the SDNY.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eJPMorgan\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation concerning hedge arrangements arising out Winter Storm Uri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent private equity firm in AAA arbitration in a contractual dispute with a competing wind farm concerning wake impacts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eTurbonomic, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in DE Chancery concerning a dispute with a competitor arising out of IBM\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of \u003cstrong\u003eTurbonomic\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eHillrom\u003c/strong\u003e in DE Chancery concerning an MAE dispute arising from its acquisition of BardyDx.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a private equity firm in an action against another private equity firm arising from a failed bid to purchase assets in the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFollowing a two-day trial in New York Supreme Court, successfully enjoined the Xerox-Fuji merger on behalf of two of Xerox\u0026rsquo;s largest shareholders,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDarwin Deason and Carl Icahn\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eClarion Partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action alleging civil RICO violations arising from investments in Mexico.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eClarion Partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action for breach of contract arising from a potential joint venture in Europe.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGenuine Parts Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Delaware Chancery Court in an action arising from the termination of an M\u0026amp;A agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFollowing a three-day bench trial in the Southern District of New York, achieved confirmation of $465 million arbitration award against the state-owned oil company of Mexico on behalf of a subsidiary of KBR, Inc. after the arbitration award had been annulled by Mexico\u0026rsquo;s courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with disputes with Yahoo! concerning data breach matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week jury trial for Middle Eastern private equity group in an action involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims relating to Shari\u0026rsquo;ah-compliant financial structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Big Four accounting firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action by a hedge fund arising out of the failure of one of the largest providers of brokerage and clearing services in the international derivatives, currency and futures market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week trial for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRoyal Bank of Canada and RBC Capital Markets\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in actions involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a former CFO of a medical device manufacturer in securities litigation arising out of a restatement of financial statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGE Capital Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and other lenders in a lawsuit against former CFO of insolvent retailer concerning misrepresentations and accounting issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a defamation action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eJulian H. Robertson, Jr\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against internet bloggers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAmbac\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit filed by the City of New Orleans arising out of a variable rate municipal bond issuance and related interest rate swaps.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-day trial in New York Supreme Court on behalf of board of directors\u0026rsquo; special committee in connection with shareholder derivative action concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe underwriter syndicate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a securities class action in connection with an equity offering of Majesco Entertainment Company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea hedge fund company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with investigation by New York Attorney General concerning equity research practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved early dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe underwriter syndicate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a securities class action concerning an equity offering of Inspire Pharmaceuticals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea privately held Latin American conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with shareholder disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of Russia\u0026rsquo;s largest financial institutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging RICO and securities fraud claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international private equity company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit arising out of the sale of a natural gas storage facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Middle Eastern financial services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;from lawsuits arising out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;concerning alleged accounting irregularities relating to revenue recognition, return reserves and \u0026ldquo;channel stuffing.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved successful resolution for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy trading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a class action in the Southern District of New York concerning alleged market manipulation under the Commodities Exchange Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea private equity group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with its investment in a power project in Guatemala.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy trading firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in class action litigation and FERC proceedings arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved favorable jury verdict in two-week jury trial on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent power producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a contract dispute with a leading energy trading company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week jury trial on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea nuclear power plant owner/operator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a contract dispute with co-owners concerning allegations that the owner/operator mismanaged the plant.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":38,"guid":"38.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":684,"guid":"684.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":685,"guid":"685.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":686,"guid":"686.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1241,"guid":"1241.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1261,"guid":"1261.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":18,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":19,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1715,"guid":"1715.smart_tags","index":20,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Marooney","nick_name":"Richard","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Richard","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"T.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"...\"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"General Commercial Litigation, Dispute Resolution, M\u0026A Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2017"},{"title":"General Commercial Attorney of the Year","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2017"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2017"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":56,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRichard Marooney is Managing Partner of the New York office and one of the practice leaders of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice. He is an experienced trial lawyer who has tried cases before juries, judges and arbitration panels. His practice focuses on complex litigation, securities, general commercial and international disputes in the financial services, accounting and energy industries.\u0026nbsp; He represents both plaintiffs and defendants. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003ehas identified Rich as one of the top litigators in New York, where it states that he is \"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\"\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognizes Rich as a top M\u0026amp;A litigator, stating he is \"a consummate trial lawyer, quick on his feet....\"\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation \u003c/em\u003eranks Rich as a National Practice Area Star.\u0026nbsp; In 2017, \u003cem\u003eBenchmark\u003c/em\u003e named him General Commercial Attorney of the Year and one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America. \u0026nbsp;He has been recognized as a Litigator of the Week by \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and is a New York Super Lawyer. Rich has served two terms on both the firm's Policy Committee and Compensation Committee.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eKPMG\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eEY LLP (UK)\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation concerning NMC Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending financial services company in DE Chancery in connection with a post-purchase M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend former CEO of Indivior in a securities class action in the SDNY.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eJPMorgan\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation concerning hedge arrangements arising out Winter Storm Uri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent private equity firm in AAA arbitration in a contractual dispute with a competing wind farm concerning wake impacts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eTurbonomic, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in DE Chancery concerning a dispute with a competitor arising out of IBM\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of \u003cstrong\u003eTurbonomic\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eHillrom\u003c/strong\u003e in DE Chancery concerning an MAE dispute arising from its acquisition of BardyDx.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a private equity firm in an action against another private equity firm arising from a failed bid to purchase assets in the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFollowing a two-day trial in New York Supreme Court, successfully enjoined the Xerox-Fuji merger on behalf of two of Xerox\u0026rsquo;s largest shareholders,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDarwin Deason and Carl Icahn\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eClarion Partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action alleging civil RICO violations arising from investments in Mexico.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eClarion Partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action for breach of contract arising from a potential joint venture in Europe.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGenuine Parts Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Delaware Chancery Court in an action arising from the termination of an M\u0026amp;A agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFollowing a three-day bench trial in the Southern District of New York, achieved confirmation of $465 million arbitration award against the state-owned oil company of Mexico on behalf of a subsidiary of KBR, Inc. after the arbitration award had been annulled by Mexico\u0026rsquo;s courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with disputes with Yahoo! concerning data breach matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week jury trial for Middle Eastern private equity group in an action involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims relating to Shari\u0026rsquo;ah-compliant financial structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Big Four accounting firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action by a hedge fund arising out of the failure of one of the largest providers of brokerage and clearing services in the international derivatives, currency and futures market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week trial for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRoyal Bank of Canada and RBC Capital Markets\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in actions involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a former CFO of a medical device manufacturer in securities litigation arising out of a restatement of financial statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGE Capital Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and other lenders in a lawsuit against former CFO of insolvent retailer concerning misrepresentations and accounting issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a defamation action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eJulian H. Robertson, Jr\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against internet bloggers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAmbac\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit filed by the City of New Orleans arising out of a variable rate municipal bond issuance and related interest rate swaps.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-day trial in New York Supreme Court on behalf of board of directors\u0026rsquo; special committee in connection with shareholder derivative action concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe underwriter syndicate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a securities class action in connection with an equity offering of Majesco Entertainment Company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea hedge fund company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with investigation by New York Attorney General concerning equity research practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved early dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe underwriter syndicate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a securities class action concerning an equity offering of Inspire Pharmaceuticals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea privately held Latin American conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with shareholder disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of Russia\u0026rsquo;s largest financial institutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging RICO and securities fraud claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international private equity company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit arising out of the sale of a natural gas storage facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Middle Eastern financial services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;from lawsuits arising out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;concerning alleged accounting irregularities relating to revenue recognition, return reserves and \u0026ldquo;channel stuffing.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved successful resolution for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy trading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a class action in the Southern District of New York concerning alleged market manipulation under the Commodities Exchange Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea private equity group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with its investment in a power project in Guatemala.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy trading firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in class action litigation and FERC proceedings arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved favorable jury verdict in two-week jury trial on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent power producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a contract dispute with a leading energy trading company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week jury trial on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea nuclear power plant owner/operator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a contract dispute with co-owners concerning allegations that the owner/operator mismanaged the plant.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"...\"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"General Commercial Litigation, Dispute Resolution, M\u0026A Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2017"},{"title":"General Commercial Attorney of the Year","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2017"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":62}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-10T22:27:26.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-10T22:27:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Marooney{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"...\\\"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"General Commercial Litigation, Dispute Resolution, M\u0026amp;A Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"General Commercial Attorney of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing KPMG in connection with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank.{{ FIELD }}Representing EY LLP (UK) in litigation concerning NMC Healthcare.{{ FIELD }}Defending financial services company in DE Chancery in connection with a post-purchase M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Defend former CEO of Indivior in a securities class action in the SDNY.{{ FIELD }}Representing JPMorgan in litigation concerning hedge arrangements arising out Winter Storm Uri.{{ FIELD }}Represent private equity firm in AAA arbitration in a contractual dispute with a competing wind farm concerning wake impacts.{{ FIELD }}Representing Turbonomic, Inc. in DE Chancery concerning a dispute with a competitor arising out of IBM’s acquisition of Turbonomic.{{ FIELD }}Represented Hillrom in DE Chancery concerning an MAE dispute arising from its acquisition of BardyDx.{{ FIELD }}Representing a private equity firm in an action against another private equity firm arising from a failed bid to purchase assets in the telecommunications industry.{{ FIELD }}Following a two-day trial in New York Supreme Court, successfully enjoined the Xerox-Fuji merger on behalf of two of Xerox’s largest shareholders, Darwin Deason and Carl Icahn.{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment for Clarion Partners in an action alleging civil RICO violations arising from investments in Mexico.{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment for Clarion Partners in an action for breach of contract arising from a potential joint venture in Europe.{{ FIELD }}Representing Genuine Parts Company in Delaware Chancery Court in an action arising from the termination of an M\u0026amp;A agreement.{{ FIELD }}Following a three-day bench trial in the Southern District of New York, achieved confirmation of $465 million arbitration award against the state-owned oil company of Mexico on behalf of a subsidiary of KBR, Inc. after the arbitration award had been annulled by Mexico’s courts.{{ FIELD }}Represented AT\u0026amp;T in connection with disputes with Yahoo! concerning data breach matters.{{ FIELD }}Won a three-week jury trial for Middle Eastern private equity group in an action involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims relating to Shari’ah-compliant financial structure.{{ FIELD }}Defended a Big Four accounting firm in an action by a hedge fund arising out of the failure of one of the largest providers of brokerage and clearing services in the international derivatives, currency and futures market.{{ FIELD }}Won a three-week trial for Royal Bank of Canada and RBC Capital Markets in actions involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting liability.{{ FIELD }}Represented a former CFO of a medical device manufacturer in securities litigation arising out of a restatement of financial statements.{{ FIELD }}Represented GE Capital Corporation and other lenders in a lawsuit against former CFO of insolvent retailer concerning misrepresentations and accounting issues.{{ FIELD }}Won a defamation action on behalf of Julian H. Robertson, Jr. against internet bloggers.{{ FIELD }}Achieved dismissal for Ambac in a lawsuit filed by the City of New Orleans arising out of a variable rate municipal bond issuance and related interest rate swaps.{{ FIELD }}Won a three-day trial in New York Supreme Court on behalf of board of directors’ special committee in connection with shareholder derivative action concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.{{ FIELD }}Defended the underwriter syndicate in a securities class action in connection with an equity offering of Majesco Entertainment Company.{{ FIELD }}Represented a hedge fund company in connection with investigation by New York Attorney General concerning equity research practices.{{ FIELD }}Achieved early dismissal for the underwriter syndicate in a securities class action concerning an equity offering of Inspire Pharmaceuticals.{{ FIELD }}Representing a privately held Latin American conglomerate in connection with shareholder disputes.{{ FIELD }}Achieved dismissal for one of Russia’s largest financial institutions in a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging RICO and securities fraud claims.{{ FIELD }}Defending an international private equity company in a lawsuit arising out of the sale of a natural gas storage facility.{{ FIELD }}Secured dismissal of a Middle Eastern financial services company from lawsuits arising out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.{{ FIELD }}Conducted an internal investigation on behalf of a European company concerning alleged accounting irregularities relating to revenue recognition, return reserves and “channel stuffing.”{{ FIELD }}Achieved successful resolution for an energy trading company in a class action in the Southern District of New York concerning alleged market manipulation under the Commodities Exchange Act.{{ FIELD }}Advised a private equity group in connection with its investment in a power project in Guatemala.{{ FIELD }}Represented an energy trading firm in class action litigation and FERC proceedings arising out of California’s energy crisis.{{ FIELD }}Achieved favorable jury verdict in two-week jury trial on behalf of an independent power producer arising from a contract dispute with a leading energy trading company.{{ FIELD }}Won a three-week jury trial on behalf of a nuclear power plant owner/operator in a contract dispute with co-owners concerning allegations that the owner/operator mismanaged the plant.{{ FIELD }}Richard Marooney is Managing Partner of the New York office and one of the practice leaders of the firm’s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice. He is an experienced trial lawyer who has tried cases before juries, judges and arbitration panels. His practice focuses on complex litigation, securities, general commercial and international disputes in the financial services, accounting and energy industries.  He represents both plaintiffs and defendants. \nChambers USA has identified Rich as one of the top litigators in New York, where it states that he is \"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\"  Legal 500 recognizes Rich as a top M\u0026amp;A litigator, stating he is \"a consummate trial lawyer, quick on his feet....\"  Benchmark Litigation ranks Rich as a National Practice Area Star.  In 2017, Benchmark named him General Commercial Attorney of the Year and one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America.  He has been recognized as a Litigator of the Week by The American Lawyer and is a New York Super Lawyer. Rich has served two terms on both the firm's Policy Committee and Compensation Committee. Partner ...\"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\"  Chambers USA, 2023 General Commercial Litigation, Dispute Resolution, M\u0026amp;A Litigation Legal 500 Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America Benchmark Litigation, 2017 General Commercial Attorney of the Year Benchmark Litigation, 2017 Litigator of the Week The American Lawyer, 2017 Boston College Boston College Law School Hofstra University Hofstra University School of Law 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 Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York New York New York State Bar Association Federal Bar Council Supreme Court Historical Society Representing KPMG in connection with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank. Representing EY LLP (UK) in litigation concerning NMC Healthcare. Defending financial services company in DE Chancery in connection with a post-purchase M\u0026amp;A dispute. Defend former CEO of Indivior in a securities class action in the SDNY. Representing JPMorgan in litigation concerning hedge arrangements arising out Winter Storm Uri. Represent private equity firm in AAA arbitration in a contractual dispute with a competing wind farm concerning wake impacts. Representing Turbonomic, Inc. in DE Chancery concerning a dispute with a competitor arising out of IBM’s acquisition of Turbonomic. Represented Hillrom in DE Chancery concerning an MAE dispute arising from its acquisition of BardyDx. Representing a private equity firm in an action against another private equity firm arising from a failed bid to purchase assets in the telecommunications industry. Following a two-day trial in New York Supreme Court, successfully enjoined the Xerox-Fuji merger on behalf of two of Xerox’s largest shareholders, Darwin Deason and Carl Icahn. Won summary judgment for Clarion Partners in an action alleging civil RICO violations arising from investments in Mexico. Won summary judgment for Clarion Partners in an action for breach of contract arising from a potential joint venture in Europe. Representing Genuine Parts Company in Delaware Chancery Court in an action arising from the termination of an M\u0026amp;A agreement. Following a three-day bench trial in the Southern District of New York, achieved confirmation of $465 million arbitration award against the state-owned oil company of Mexico on behalf of a subsidiary of KBR, Inc. after the arbitration award had been annulled by Mexico’s courts. Represented AT\u0026amp;T in connection with disputes with Yahoo! concerning data breach matters. Won a three-week jury trial for Middle Eastern private equity group in an action involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims relating to Shari’ah-compliant financial structure. Defended a Big Four accounting firm in an action by a hedge fund arising out of the failure of one of the largest providers of brokerage and clearing services in the international derivatives, currency and futures market. Won a three-week trial for Royal Bank of Canada and RBC Capital Markets in actions involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting liability. Represented a former CFO of a medical device manufacturer in securities litigation arising out of a restatement of financial statements. Represented GE Capital Corporation and other lenders in a lawsuit against former CFO of insolvent retailer concerning misrepresentations and accounting issues. Won a defamation action on behalf of Julian H. Robertson, Jr. against internet bloggers. Achieved dismissal for Ambac in a lawsuit filed by the City of New Orleans arising out of a variable rate municipal bond issuance and related interest rate swaps. Won a three-day trial in New York Supreme Court on behalf of board of directors’ special committee in connection with shareholder derivative action concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Defended the underwriter syndicate in a securities class action in connection with an equity offering of Majesco Entertainment Company. Represented a hedge fund company in connection with investigation by New York Attorney General concerning equity research practices. Achieved early dismissal for the underwriter syndicate in a securities class action concerning an equity offering of Inspire Pharmaceuticals. Representing a privately held Latin American conglomerate in connection with shareholder disputes. Achieved dismissal for one of Russia’s largest financial institutions in a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging RICO and securities fraud claims. Defending an international private equity company in a lawsuit arising out of the sale of a natural gas storage facility. Secured dismissal of a Middle Eastern financial services company from lawsuits arising out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Conducted an internal investigation on behalf of a European company concerning alleged accounting irregularities relating to revenue recognition, return reserves and “channel stuffing.” Achieved successful resolution for an energy trading company in a class action in the Southern District of New York concerning alleged market manipulation under the Commodities Exchange Act. Advised a private equity group in connection with its investment in a power project in Guatemala. Represented an energy trading firm in class action litigation and FERC proceedings arising out of California’s energy crisis. Achieved favorable jury verdict in two-week jury trial on behalf of an independent power producer arising from a contract dispute with a leading energy trading company. Won a three-week jury trial on behalf of a nuclear power plant owner/operator in a contract dispute with co-owners concerning allegations that the owner/operator mismanaged the plant.","searchable_name":"Richard T. Marooney","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":442807,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5777,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDamien Marshall is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group and Co-Head of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Business Litigation Practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on the resolution of complex business disputes over a broad range of substantive areas, including corporate governance and shareholder disputes, antitrust, securities, consumer protection and general commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp; Damien has extensive experience representing clients on a broad range of litigation and regulatory matters with particular emphasis on defending financial institutions and technology companies in class action and MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien has successfully represented clients in significant matters for more than 20 years, including: American Express in antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record breaking $4 billion; BNY Mellon in a RICO suit \u0026nbsp;brought by the Russian Federal Tax Authority and venued in the Russian Arbitrage Court where BNY Mellon resolved the matter for less than 1 percent of claimed damages; DraftKings in a class action lawsuit challenging the use of college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests, where DraftKings obtained summary judgment; DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports, where the matter was resolved for play credits; Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging the sale of an unregistered security where Ripple obtained summary judgment; HSBC in all civil litigation related to its RMBS issuance business; and Goldman Sachs in a partnership dispute in which Goldman Sachs obtained a complete defense victory after an arbitration hearing. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently, Damien\u0026rsquo;s disclosable work includes representation of: Madison Square Garden in litigation and administrative matters; EarthLink LLC in a partnership dispute with Charter Communications; a group of 14 hospital systems in antitrust litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield; and Ripple Labs in numerous matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout the nation.\u0026nbsp; His clients include large global financial institutions, as well as companies in the media and entertainment space, technology companies, Fintech companies, hedge funds and private equity funds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegardless of the client or forum, Damien focuses on achieving his client\u0026rsquo;s legal and business goals in an efficient and effective manner.\u0026nbsp; Damien is recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal500 \u003c/em\u003efor his general litigation practice and GAR for his antitrust practice. In addition to his dispute resolution practice, Damien provides risk analysis and advice to clients regarding potential exposures and risk mitigation strategies.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"damien-marshall","email":"dmarshall@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3779}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":38,"guid":"38.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1165,"guid":"1165.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1179,"guid":"1179.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1261,"guid":"1261.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Marshall","nick_name":"Damien","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Rosemary Barkett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"2000 - 2001"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida","years_held":"1999 - 2000"}],"first_name":"Damien","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1999-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500","detail":""},{"title":"Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers","detail":""},{"title":"Client Service All Star","detail":"BTI, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Damien Marshall is a lawyer of our Business Litigation Practice Group. Read more.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDamien Marshall is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group and Co-Head of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Business Litigation Practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on the resolution of complex business disputes over a broad range of substantive areas, including corporate governance and shareholder disputes, antitrust, securities, consumer protection and general commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp; Damien has extensive experience representing clients on a broad range of litigation and regulatory matters with particular emphasis on defending financial institutions and technology companies in class action and MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien has successfully represented clients in significant matters for more than 20 years, including: American Express in antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record breaking $4 billion; BNY Mellon in a RICO suit \u0026nbsp;brought by the Russian Federal Tax Authority and venued in the Russian Arbitrage Court where BNY Mellon resolved the matter for less than 1 percent of claimed damages; DraftKings in a class action lawsuit challenging the use of college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests, where DraftKings obtained summary judgment; DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports, where the matter was resolved for play credits; Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging the sale of an unregistered security where Ripple obtained summary judgment; HSBC in all civil litigation related to its RMBS issuance business; and Goldman Sachs in a partnership dispute in which Goldman Sachs obtained a complete defense victory after an arbitration hearing. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently, Damien\u0026rsquo;s disclosable work includes representation of: Madison Square Garden in litigation and administrative matters; EarthLink LLC in a partnership dispute with Charter Communications; a group of 14 hospital systems in antitrust litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield; and Ripple Labs in numerous matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout the nation.\u0026nbsp; His clients include large global financial institutions, as well as companies in the media and entertainment space, technology companies, Fintech companies, hedge funds and private equity funds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegardless of the client or forum, Damien focuses on achieving his client\u0026rsquo;s legal and business goals in an efficient and effective manner.\u0026nbsp; Damien is recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal500 \u003c/em\u003efor his general litigation practice and GAR for his antitrust practice. In addition to his dispute resolution practice, Damien provides risk analysis and advice to clients regarding potential exposures and risk mitigation strategies.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500","detail":""},{"title":"Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers","detail":""},{"title":"Client Service All Star","detail":"BTI, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11377}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:50.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:50.000Z","searchable_text":"Marshall{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Client Service All Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Defense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business{{ FIELD }}The successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion{{ FIELD }}Successful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests{{ FIELD }}Leading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports{{ FIELD }}Leading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets{{ FIELD }}Leading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security{{ FIELD }}Damien Marshall is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group and Co-Head of the Firm’s Business Litigation Practice.  His practice focuses on the resolution of complex business disputes over a broad range of substantive areas, including corporate governance and shareholder disputes, antitrust, securities, consumer protection and general commercial disputes.  Damien has extensive experience representing clients on a broad range of litigation and regulatory matters with particular emphasis on defending financial institutions and technology companies in class action and MDL proceedings.  \nDamien has successfully represented clients in significant matters for more than 20 years, including: American Express in antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record breaking $4 billion; BNY Mellon in a RICO suit  brought by the Russian Federal Tax Authority and venued in the Russian Arbitrage Court where BNY Mellon resolved the matter for less than 1 percent of claimed damages; DraftKings in a class action lawsuit challenging the use of college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests, where DraftKings obtained summary judgment; DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports, where the matter was resolved for play credits; Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging the sale of an unregistered security where Ripple obtained summary judgment; HSBC in all civil litigation related to its RMBS issuance business; and Goldman Sachs in a partnership dispute in which Goldman Sachs obtained a complete defense victory after an arbitration hearing.  \nCurrently, Damien’s disclosable work includes representation of: Madison Square Garden in litigation and administrative matters; EarthLink LLC in a partnership dispute with Charter Communications; a group of 14 hospital systems in antitrust litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield; and Ripple Labs in numerous matters. \nDamien regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout the nation.  His clients include large global financial institutions, as well as companies in the media and entertainment space, technology companies, Fintech companies, hedge funds and private equity funds.\nRegardless of the client or forum, Damien focuses on achieving his client’s legal and business goals in an efficient and effective manner.  Damien is recognized by The Legal500 for his general litigation practice and GAR for his antitrust practice. In addition to his dispute resolution practice, Damien provides risk analysis and advice to clients regarding potential exposures and risk mitigation strategies. Damien Marshall lawyer Partner Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, 2025 Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500  Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers  Client Service All Star BTI, 2020 University of California-Los Angeles UCLA School of Law Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Florida New York Member, Georgetown University Law Alumni Board Member, UCLA New York Regional Alumni Committee Trustee, The Fredrick Gunn School Law Clerk, Hon. Rosemary Barkett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Law Clerk, Hon. Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Defense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business The successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion Successful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests Leading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports Leading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets Leading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security","searchable_name":"Damien Marshall","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444226,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3179,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Mattern\u0026nbsp;is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who represents technology, media, and entertainment companies in complex litigation and intellectual property matters.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid has substantial experience defending technology platforms and other companies in suits related to user content, including in copyright litigation, matters involving Section 230, the DMCA, and trademark and trade secret claims.\u0026nbsp; David has also litigated\u0026nbsp;consumer class actions, securities cases,\u0026nbsp;and constitutional matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, David was a law clerk to then-Chief Judge R. Guy Cole (Sixth Circuit). He received his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was a James Kent Scholar.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid has represented clients at trial and appeal in courts across the country. David has particular expertise in copyright law and platform defenses, including representing platforms in copyright litigation and\u0026nbsp;rate court disputes, and in defending platforms in suits related to user content and content moderation under the DMCA and Section 230.\u0026nbsp;His experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act litigation,\u0026nbsp;product liability litigation, professional liability litigation, and many other types of business litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid devotes a significant amount of time to pro bono civil rights litigation. Recent successful representations include obtaining reversal of a grant of qualified immunity to prison officials in a suit brought under Section 1983 in a case he argued in the Ninth Circuit, and in obtaining a reversal of a grant of summary judgment to prison officials on exhaustion under the PLRA in a case he argued in the Seventh Circuit.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-mattern","email":"dmattern@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-Lead Counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eTikTok \u003c/strong\u003ein nationwide litigation in which personal injuries and school districts plaintiffs allege harms arising from adolescent use of social media and entertainment platforms, including in the Social Media MDL pending in N.D. Cal. and JCCP pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Runner-up for Litigator of the Week for obtaining dismissal of school district suits in the JCCP proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel to \u003cstrong\u003eActivision Blizzard\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of harms arising from the purported addiction to video games.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-lead Counsel to the \u003cstrong\u003eRadio Music License Committee \u003c/strong\u003ein a series of rate-setting proceedings involving the performing rights\u0026rsquo; organizations ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel to \u003cstrong\u003eGoogle/YouTube\u003c/strong\u003e in a rate-setting proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to determine the rates non-interactive streaming services pay record labels, including arguing on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eGoogle/YouTube \u003c/strong\u003ein the D.C. Circuit in support of affirming the rate determination\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003elarge technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation filed against Russian cybercriminals operating a botnet that employed blockchain technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown v. Peloton\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2019).\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Represents Peloton Interactive, Inc. in suit brought by music publishers in SDNY\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhonorecords III\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2017).\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Represented Google before the Copyright Royalty Board in a proceeding to set the royalty rates paid to publishers for interactive streaming.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora v. BMI\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMember of trial team representing Pandora against Broadcast Music, Inc. in rate court proceeding under antitrust consent decree to determine public performance royalties for Pandora\u0026rsquo;s internet radio service.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mattern","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Chief Judge R. Guy Cole, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","years_held":"2017 - 2018"}],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":485,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"James Kent Scholar","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Mattern\u0026nbsp;is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who represents technology, media, and entertainment companies in complex litigation and intellectual property matters.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid has substantial experience defending technology platforms and other companies in suits related to user content, including in copyright litigation, matters involving Section 230, the DMCA, and trademark and trade secret claims.\u0026nbsp; David has also litigated\u0026nbsp;consumer class actions, securities cases,\u0026nbsp;and constitutional matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, David was a law clerk to then-Chief Judge R. Guy Cole (Sixth Circuit). He received his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was a James Kent Scholar.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid has represented clients at trial and appeal in courts across the country. David has particular expertise in copyright law and platform defenses, including representing platforms in copyright litigation and\u0026nbsp;rate court disputes, and in defending platforms in suits related to user content and content moderation under the DMCA and Section 230.\u0026nbsp;His experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act litigation,\u0026nbsp;product liability litigation, professional liability litigation, and many other types of business litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid devotes a significant amount of time to pro bono civil rights litigation. Recent successful representations include obtaining reversal of a grant of qualified immunity to prison officials in a suit brought under Section 1983 in a case he argued in the Ninth Circuit, and in obtaining a reversal of a grant of summary judgment to prison officials on exhaustion under the PLRA in a case he argued in the Seventh Circuit.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-Lead Counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eTikTok \u003c/strong\u003ein nationwide litigation in which personal injuries and school districts plaintiffs allege harms arising from adolescent use of social media and entertainment platforms, including in the Social Media MDL pending in N.D. Cal. and JCCP pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Runner-up for Litigator of the Week for obtaining dismissal of school district suits in the JCCP proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel to \u003cstrong\u003eActivision Blizzard\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of harms arising from the purported addiction to video games.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-lead Counsel to the \u003cstrong\u003eRadio Music License Committee \u003c/strong\u003ein a series of rate-setting proceedings involving the performing rights\u0026rsquo; organizations ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel to \u003cstrong\u003eGoogle/YouTube\u003c/strong\u003e in a rate-setting proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to determine the rates non-interactive streaming services pay record labels, including arguing on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eGoogle/YouTube \u003c/strong\u003ein the D.C. Circuit in support of affirming the rate determination\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003elarge technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation filed against Russian cybercriminals operating a botnet that employed blockchain technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown v. Peloton\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2019).\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Represents Peloton Interactive, Inc. in suit brought by music publishers in SDNY\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhonorecords III\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2017).\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Represented Google before the Copyright Royalty Board in a proceeding to set the royalty rates paid to publishers for interactive streaming.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora v. BMI\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(2015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMember of trial team representing Pandora against Broadcast Music, Inc. in rate court proceeding under antitrust consent decree to determine public performance royalties for Pandora\u0026rsquo;s internet radio service.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9106}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-12T21:52:12.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-12T21:52:12.000Z","searchable_text":"Mattern{{ FIELD }}Co-Lead Counsel to TikTok in nationwide litigation in which personal injuries and school districts plaintiffs allege harms arising from adolescent use of social media and entertainment platforms, including in the Social Media MDL pending in N.D. Cal. and JCCP pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Runner-up for Litigator of the Week for obtaining dismissal of school district suits in the JCCP proceeding.{{ FIELD }}Counsel to Activision Blizzard in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of harms arising from the purported addiction to video games.{{ FIELD }}Co-lead Counsel to the Radio Music License Committee in a series of rate-setting proceedings involving the performing rights’ organizations ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC{{ FIELD }}Counsel to Google/YouTube in a rate-setting proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to determine the rates non-interactive streaming services pay record labels, including arguing on behalf of Google/YouTube in the D.C. Circuit in support of affirming the rate determination{{ FIELD }}Represented a large technology company in litigation filed against Russian cybercriminals operating a botnet that employed blockchain technology.{{ FIELD }}Downtown v. Peloton (2019). Represents Peloton Interactive, Inc. in suit brought by music publishers in SDNY{{ FIELD }}Phonorecords III (2017). Represented Google before the Copyright Royalty Board in a proceeding to set the royalty rates paid to publishers for interactive streaming.{{ FIELD }}Pandora v. BMI (2015). Member of trial team representing Pandora against Broadcast Music, Inc. in rate court proceeding under antitrust consent decree to determine public performance royalties for Pandora’s internet radio service.{{ FIELD }}David Mattern is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who represents technology, media, and entertainment companies in complex litigation and intellectual property matters.  \nDavid has substantial experience defending technology platforms and other companies in suits related to user content, including in copyright litigation, matters involving Section 230, the DMCA, and trademark and trade secret claims.  David has also litigated consumer class actions, securities cases, and constitutional matters.\nBefore rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, David was a law clerk to then-Chief Judge R. Guy Cole (Sixth Circuit). He received his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was a James Kent Scholar. \nDavid has represented clients at trial and appeal in courts across the country. David has particular expertise in copyright law and platform defenses, including representing platforms in copyright litigation and rate court disputes, and in defending platforms in suits related to user content and content moderation under the DMCA and Section 230. His experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act litigation, product liability litigation, professional liability litigation, and many other types of business litigation.\nDavid devotes a significant amount of time to pro bono civil rights litigation. Recent successful representations include obtaining reversal of a grant of qualified immunity to prison officials in a suit brought under Section 1983 in a case he argued in the Ninth Circuit, and in obtaining a reversal of a grant of summary judgment to prison officials on exhaustion under the PLRA in a case he argued in the Seventh Circuit.  Partner Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law Columbia University Columbia University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia New York Judicial Clerk, Chief Judge R. Guy Cole, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Co-Lead Counsel to TikTok in nationwide litigation in which personal injuries and school districts plaintiffs allege harms arising from adolescent use of social media and entertainment platforms, including in the Social Media MDL pending in N.D. Cal. and JCCP pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Runner-up for Litigator of the Week for obtaining dismissal of school district suits in the JCCP proceeding. Counsel to Activision Blizzard in connection with nationwide lawsuits alleging a variety of harms arising from the purported addiction to video games. Co-lead Counsel to the Radio Music License Committee in a series of rate-setting proceedings involving the performing rights’ organizations ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC Counsel to Google/YouTube in a rate-setting proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board to determine the rates non-interactive streaming services pay record labels, including arguing on behalf of Google/YouTube in the D.C. Circuit in support of affirming the rate determination Represented a large technology company in litigation filed against Russian cybercriminals operating a botnet that employed blockchain technology. Downtown v. Peloton (2019). Represents Peloton Interactive, Inc. in suit brought by music publishers in SDNY Phonorecords III (2017). Represented Google before the Copyright Royalty Board in a proceeding to set the royalty rates paid to publishers for interactive streaming. Pandora v. BMI (2015). Member of trial team representing Pandora against Broadcast Music, Inc. in rate court proceeding under antitrust consent decree to determine public performance royalties for Pandora’s internet radio service.","searchable_name":"David P. Mattern","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442796,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5647,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSimon Maynard combines strategic acumen with tenacious advocacy to resolve complex commercial disputes in a way that maximizes commercial impact. Simon was honoured as Lawyer of the Year at the 2022 Legal Business Awards and is recognized as a Rising Star for international arbitration by Legal 500.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimon focuses his practice on international commercial and investment treaty arbitration, as well as arbitration-related litigation before the English courts, in disputes concerning upstream oil and gas, renewables and the energy transition, mining, aerospace and defence, and financial services. He is also acknowledged for his international law expertise, in particular in the outer space and deep-sea mining sectors. His approach is outcome-focused, applying rigorous legal analysis with creative thinking to devise legal solutions that are delivered with clarity and flair.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his practice, Simon is a leading advocate for disability inclusion in the legal profession and beyond. He is Co-Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Task Force on Disability Inclusion and International Arbitration, as well as a member of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA)\u0026rsquo;s Disability Committee. In this regard, Simon appears regularly in print media, including the Financial Times, Global Arbitration Review and Law.com.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"simon-maynard","email":"smaynard@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an investor in an LCIA arbitration concerning a hospitality project in the Balkans.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a State-owned Petroleum company in an LCIA arbitration against the counterparty to a long-term LNG supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a diversified natural resources company in parallel ad hoc arbitrations against the host State and a national oil company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a product manufacturer in a dispute concerning disputed payments under a design services agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a multinational utilities company in a price review arbitration under a long-term gas supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several infrastructure funds in ICSID arbitrations against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from regulatory measures affecting investments in the renewables sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an oil major in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a Southeast Asian State and its national oil company concerning adverse taxation measures and breach of two PSCs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Middle Eastern State in an ICSID arbitration concerning a dispute arising from a long-term energy infrastructure contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised an oil major in relation to a tax stabilisation claim under a PSC against an African national oil company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented for a high net-worth individual in an LCIA arbitration concerning the disputed ownership of a valuable real estate asset in Russia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a South Asian State in parallel investment treaty arbitrations brought by a company and its principal shareholder arising out of an energy infrastructure investment.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1166,"guid":"1166.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1143,"guid":"1143.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1237,"guid":"1237.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":131,"guid":"131.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Maynard","nick_name":"Simon","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Simon","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Shortlisted for \"Rising Star\"","detail":"British Legal Awards 2022"},{"title":"Winner of Lawyer of the Year ","detail":"Legal Business Awards 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star and Key Lawyer in International Arbitration","detail":"Legal 500 UK 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star in International Arbitration","detail":"Euromoney Expert Guides, 2018-2022"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSimon Maynard combines strategic acumen with tenacious advocacy to resolve complex commercial disputes in a way that maximizes commercial impact. Simon was honoured as Lawyer of the Year at the 2022 Legal Business Awards and is recognized as a Rising Star for international arbitration by Legal 500.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimon focuses his practice on international commercial and investment treaty arbitration, as well as arbitration-related litigation before the English courts, in disputes concerning upstream oil and gas, renewables and the energy transition, mining, aerospace and defence, and financial services. He is also acknowledged for his international law expertise, in particular in the outer space and deep-sea mining sectors. His approach is outcome-focused, applying rigorous legal analysis with creative thinking to devise legal solutions that are delivered with clarity and flair.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his practice, Simon is a leading advocate for disability inclusion in the legal profession and beyond. He is Co-Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Task Force on Disability Inclusion and International Arbitration, as well as a member of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA)\u0026rsquo;s Disability Committee. In this regard, Simon appears regularly in print media, including the Financial Times, Global Arbitration Review and Law.com.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an investor in an LCIA arbitration concerning a hospitality project in the Balkans.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a State-owned Petroleum company in an LCIA arbitration against the counterparty to a long-term LNG supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a diversified natural resources company in parallel ad hoc arbitrations against the host State and a national oil company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a product manufacturer in a dispute concerning disputed payments under a design services agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a multinational utilities company in a price review arbitration under a long-term gas supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several infrastructure funds in ICSID arbitrations against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from regulatory measures affecting investments in the renewables sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an oil major in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a Southeast Asian State and its national oil company concerning adverse taxation measures and breach of two PSCs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Middle Eastern State in an ICSID arbitration concerning a dispute arising from a long-term energy infrastructure contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised an oil major in relation to a tax stabilisation claim under a PSC against an African national oil company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented for a high net-worth individual in an LCIA arbitration concerning the disputed ownership of a valuable real estate asset in Russia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a South Asian State in parallel investment treaty arbitrations brought by a company and its principal shareholder arising out of an energy infrastructure investment.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Shortlisted for \"Rising Star\"","detail":"British Legal Awards 2022"},{"title":"Winner of Lawyer of the Year ","detail":"Legal Business Awards 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star and Key Lawyer in International Arbitration","detail":"Legal 500 UK 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star in International Arbitration","detail":"Euromoney Expert Guides, 2018-2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8331}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:30.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:30.000Z","searchable_text":"Maynard{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Shortlisted for \\\"Rising Star\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"British Legal Awards 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Winner of Lawyer of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal Business Awards 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star and Key Lawyer in International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star in International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney Expert Guides, 2018-2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing an investor in an LCIA arbitration concerning a hospitality project in the Balkans.{{ FIELD }}Representing a State-owned Petroleum company in an LCIA arbitration against the counterparty to a long-term LNG supply agreement.{{ FIELD }}Representing a diversified natural resources company in parallel ad hoc arbitrations against the host State and a national oil company.{{ FIELD }}Advising a product manufacturer in a dispute concerning disputed payments under a design services agreement.{{ FIELD }}Representing a multinational utilities company in a price review arbitration under a long-term gas supply agreement.{{ FIELD }}Represented several infrastructure funds in ICSID arbitrations against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from regulatory measures affecting investments in the renewables sector.{{ FIELD }}Represented an oil major in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a Southeast Asian State and its national oil company concerning adverse taxation measures and breach of two PSCs.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Middle Eastern State in an ICSID arbitration concerning a dispute arising from a long-term energy infrastructure contract.{{ FIELD }}Advised an oil major in relation to a tax stabilisation claim under a PSC against an African national oil company.{{ FIELD }}Represented for a high net-worth individual in an LCIA arbitration concerning the disputed ownership of a valuable real estate asset in Russia.{{ FIELD }}Represented a South Asian State in parallel investment treaty arbitrations brought by a company and its principal shareholder arising out of an energy infrastructure investment.{{ FIELD }}Simon Maynard combines strategic acumen with tenacious advocacy to resolve complex commercial disputes in a way that maximizes commercial impact. Simon was honoured as Lawyer of the Year at the 2022 Legal Business Awards and is recognized as a Rising Star for international arbitration by Legal 500.\nSimon focuses his practice on international commercial and investment treaty arbitration, as well as arbitration-related litigation before the English courts, in disputes concerning upstream oil and gas, renewables and the energy transition, mining, aerospace and defence, and financial services. He is also acknowledged for his international law expertise, in particular in the outer space and deep-sea mining sectors. His approach is outcome-focused, applying rigorous legal analysis with creative thinking to devise legal solutions that are delivered with clarity and flair.\nIn addition to his practice, Simon is a leading advocate for disability inclusion in the legal profession and beyond. He is Co-Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Task Force on Disability Inclusion and International Arbitration, as well as a member of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA)’s Disability Committee. In this regard, Simon appears regularly in print media, including the Financial Times, Global Arbitration Review and Law.com. Partner Shortlisted for \"Rising Star\" British Legal Awards 2022 Winner of Lawyer of the Year  Legal Business Awards 2022 Rising Star and Key Lawyer in International Arbitration Legal 500 UK 2022 Rising Star in International Arbitration Euromoney Expert Guides, 2018-2022 University of Cambridge, UK  University of Law, London University of Law, London England and Wales Law Society of England \u0026amp; Wales (Admitted 09/15/2011; Reg#476516) Representing an investor in an LCIA arbitration concerning a hospitality project in the Balkans. Representing a State-owned Petroleum company in an LCIA arbitration against the counterparty to a long-term LNG supply agreement. Representing a diversified natural resources company in parallel ad hoc arbitrations against the host State and a national oil company. Advising a product manufacturer in a dispute concerning disputed payments under a design services agreement. Representing a multinational utilities company in a price review arbitration under a long-term gas supply agreement. Represented several infrastructure funds in ICSID arbitrations against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from regulatory measures affecting investments in the renewables sector. Represented an oil major in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a Southeast Asian State and its national oil company concerning adverse taxation measures and breach of two PSCs. Represented a Middle Eastern State in an ICSID arbitration concerning a dispute arising from a long-term energy infrastructure contract. Advised an oil major in relation to a tax stabilisation claim under a PSC against an African national oil company. Represented for a high net-worth individual in an LCIA arbitration concerning the disputed ownership of a valuable real estate asset in Russia. Represented a South Asian State in parallel investment treaty arbitrations brought by a company and its principal shareholder arising out of an energy infrastructure investment.","searchable_name":"Simon Maynard","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":436361,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2118,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Trademark Reporter\u003c/em\u003e, having\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eserved on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie\u0026rsquo;s article, \u0026ldquo;Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody\u0026rdquo; won INTA\u0026rsquo;s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.\u0026nbsp; Katie is the author of PLI\u0026rsquo;s one volume treatise, \u0026ldquo;Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner\u0026rsquo;s Guide.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has been recognized in the 2012\u0026ndash;2016 editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her trademark work.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kathleen-mccarthy","email":"kmccarthy@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eA Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBaldino\u0026rsquo;s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eValerus Field Solutions LP\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn Site Energy Co. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMTU Onsite Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSpanx, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFritz Hansen A/S\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc\u003c/strong\u003e. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include:\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McCarthy","nick_name":"Katie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kathleen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":485,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1986-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Named for Trademark Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023"},{"title":"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York","detail":"World Trademark Review 1000"},{"title":"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathleenekatiemccarthy/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Trademark Reporter\u003c/em\u003e, having\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eserved on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie\u0026rsquo;s article, \u0026ldquo;Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody\u0026rdquo; won INTA\u0026rsquo;s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.\u0026nbsp; Katie is the author of PLI\u0026rsquo;s one volume treatise, \u0026ldquo;Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner\u0026rsquo;s Guide.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has been recognized in the 2012\u0026ndash;2016 editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her trademark work.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eA Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBaldino\u0026rsquo;s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eValerus Field Solutions LP\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn Site Energy Co. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMTU Onsite Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSpanx, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFritz Hansen A/S\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc\u003c/strong\u003e. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include:\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Named for Trademark Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023"},{"title":"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York","detail":"World Trademark Review 1000"},{"title":"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4266},{"id":4266}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:50:27.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:50:27.000Z","searchable_text":"McCarthy{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named for Trademark Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"World Trademark Review 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}A Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v. Google Inc. et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).{{ FIELD }}Baldino’s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v. Google Inc. et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).{{ FIELD }}Valerus Field Solutions LP v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).{{ FIELD }}On Site Energy Co. v. MTU Onsite Energy (EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).{{ FIELD }}Spanx, Inc. v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).{{ FIELD }}Fritz Hansen A/S v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include: Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).{{ FIELD }}Katie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.\nDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\nKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\nKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal, The Trademark Reporter, having served on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie’s article, “Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody” won INTA’s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.  Katie is the author of PLI’s one volume treatise, “Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner’s Guide.”\nKatie has been recognized in the 2012–2016 editions of Legal 500 for her trademark work. Partner Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation Legal 500, 2022 Named for Trademark Law Best Lawyers, 2023 Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York Managing Intellectual Property, 2022 Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York World Trademark Review 1000 Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP Managing Intellectual Property, 2020 College of the Holy Cross  Columbia University Columbia University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New York New York A Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v. Google Inc. et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision). Baldino’s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v. Google Inc. et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims). Valerus Field Solutions LP v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion). On Site Energy Co. v. MTU Onsite Energy (EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense). Spanx, Inc. v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter). Fritz Hansen A/S v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution). Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include: Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).","searchable_name":"Kathleen E. McCarthy (Katie)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442357,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":827,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTish McDonald focuses on complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis in fiduciary litigation, trust and estate litigation, litigation involving non-profits, real estate litigation, and litigation involving governmental entities.\u0026nbsp;A partner in our Trial and Global Practice Group, Tish represents trustees, executors, beneficiaries, developers, financial institutions, foundations and other non-profit entities and others in a variety of proceedings. A Fellow of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, Tish has litigated a wide range of fiduciary disputes, including breach of fiduciary duty actions brought by beneficiaries against executors and trustees (on both sides), including financial institutions; will/trust interpretation cases; trustee removal cases; trust modification matters; contested conservatorships; trust issues in divorce cases; matters involving the appropriate measure of fiduciary compensation; cases involving the alleged failure to notify or communicate with beneficiaries; cases involving statutes of limitation with respect to actions of fiduciaries; and matters involving the alleged malfeasance of an agent under a financial power of attorney. She has also handled cases involving the Attorney General of Georgia and the oversight of charitable trusts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTish has handled appeals before the Georgia appellate courts, including oral arguments. Tish represents clients in commercial and fiduciary litigation, as well as litigation involving real estate transactions and governmental matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePast Publications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"Emerging Issues in Fiduciary Litigation,\" Estate Planning Institute (2012)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"It's Not About the Teacups: Proper Estate Planning May Prevent Family Blowups,\"\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Woman Magazine (2008)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"The Modern Estate Planning Lawyer: Avoiding the Maelstrom of Malpractice Claims,\" Probate and Property, American Bar Association (2008)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePast Speaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Can you Trust Trusts? Implications of Using Trusts in Divorce Cases,\"\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Bar Association,\u0026nbsp;February\u0026nbsp;2016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"That was Then, This is Now - Examining the Consequences of Estate Planning in a Subsequent Divorce Action When the Objectives of Fiduciary and Family Law Compete\u0026rdquo;, Fiduciary Law Institute, July\u0026nbsp;2015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Special Considerations in Trust and Family Business Entities\",\u0026nbsp;presented to Judges on the Metro-Atlanta Business Court Division for the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta, Georgia, February\u0026nbsp;2012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Avoiding the Pitfalls of a Malpractice Claim in the Modern Estate Planning World\u0026rdquo;, Fiduciary Law Institute, July\u0026nbsp;2009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"letitia-mcdonald","email":"tmcdonald@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-404-822-8860","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1064,"guid":"1064.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McDonald","nick_name":"Tish","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Letitia","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTish McDonald focuses on complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis in fiduciary litigation, trust and estate litigation, litigation involving non-profits, real estate litigation, and litigation involving governmental entities.\u0026nbsp;A partner in our Trial and Global Practice Group, Tish represents trustees, executors, beneficiaries, developers, financial institutions, foundations and other non-profit entities and others in a variety of proceedings. A Fellow of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, Tish has litigated a wide range of fiduciary disputes, including breach of fiduciary duty actions brought by beneficiaries against executors and trustees (on both sides), including financial institutions; will/trust interpretation cases; trustee removal cases; trust modification matters; contested conservatorships; trust issues in divorce cases; matters involving the appropriate measure of fiduciary compensation; cases involving the alleged failure to notify or communicate with beneficiaries; cases involving statutes of limitation with respect to actions of fiduciaries; and matters involving the alleged malfeasance of an agent under a financial power of attorney. She has also handled cases involving the Attorney General of Georgia and the oversight of charitable trusts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTish has handled appeals before the Georgia appellate courts, including oral arguments. Tish represents clients in commercial and fiduciary litigation, as well as litigation involving real estate transactions and governmental matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePast Publications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"Emerging Issues in Fiduciary Litigation,\" Estate Planning Institute (2012)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"It's Not About the Teacups: Proper Estate Planning May Prevent Family Blowups,\"\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Woman Magazine (2008)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"The Modern Estate Planning Lawyer: Avoiding the Maelstrom of Malpractice Claims,\" Probate and Property, American Bar Association (2008)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePast Speaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Can you Trust Trusts? Implications of Using Trusts in Divorce Cases,\"\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Bar Association,\u0026nbsp;February\u0026nbsp;2016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"That was Then, This is Now - Examining the Consequences of Estate Planning in a Subsequent Divorce Action When the Objectives of Fiduciary and Family Law Compete\u0026rdquo;, Fiduciary Law Institute, July\u0026nbsp;2015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Special Considerations in Trust and Family Business Entities\",\u0026nbsp;presented to Judges on the Metro-Atlanta Business Court Division for the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta, Georgia, February\u0026nbsp;2012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Avoiding the Pitfalls of a Malpractice Claim in the Modern Estate Planning World\u0026rdquo;, Fiduciary Law Institute, July\u0026nbsp;2009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1049}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:24.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:24.000Z","searchable_text":"McDonald{{ FIELD }}Tish McDonald focuses on complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis in fiduciary litigation, trust and estate litigation, litigation involving non-profits, real estate litigation, and litigation involving governmental entities. A partner in our Trial and Global Practice Group, Tish represents trustees, executors, beneficiaries, developers, financial institutions, foundations and other non-profit entities and others in a variety of proceedings. A Fellow of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, Tish has litigated a wide range of fiduciary disputes, including breach of fiduciary duty actions brought by beneficiaries against executors and trustees (on both sides), including financial institutions; will/trust interpretation cases; trustee removal cases; trust modification matters; contested conservatorships; trust issues in divorce cases; matters involving the appropriate measure of fiduciary compensation; cases involving the alleged failure to notify or communicate with beneficiaries; cases involving statutes of limitation with respect to actions of fiduciaries; and matters involving the alleged malfeasance of an agent under a financial power of attorney. She has also handled cases involving the Attorney General of Georgia and the oversight of charitable trusts.\nTish has handled appeals before the Georgia appellate courts, including oral arguments. Tish represents clients in commercial and fiduciary litigation, as well as litigation involving real estate transactions and governmental matters. \nPast Publications\n\nCo-author, \"Emerging Issues in Fiduciary Litigation,\" Estate Planning Institute (2012)\nCo-author, \"It's Not About the Teacups: Proper Estate Planning May Prevent Family Blowups,\" Atlanta Woman Magazine (2008)\nCo-author, \"The Modern Estate Planning Lawyer: Avoiding the Maelstrom of Malpractice Claims,\" Probate and Property, American Bar Association (2008)\n\nPast Speaking Engagements\n\n\"Can you Trust Trusts? Implications of Using Trusts in Divorce Cases,\" Atlanta Bar Association, February 2016\n\"That was Then, This is Now - Examining the Consequences of Estate Planning in a Subsequent Divorce Action When the Objectives of Fiduciary and Family Law Compete”, Fiduciary Law Institute, July 2015\n\"Special Considerations in Trust and Family Business Entities\", presented to Judges on the Metro-Atlanta Business Court Division for the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta, Georgia, February 2012\n\"Avoiding the Pitfalls of a Malpractice Claim in the Modern Estate Planning World”, Fiduciary Law Institute, July 2009\n Partner Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Tax Court Georgia Member, Atlanta Bar Association (Estate Planning \u0026amp; Probate, Family Law, and Litigation Sections) Member, State Bar of Georgia, (Fiduciary, Non Profit, Family, Real Property, General Practice \u0026amp; Trial, School \u0026amp; College, and Local Government Sections), 1989 - Present Member, Board of Governors, State Bar of Georgia Former Member, Board of Directors, Atlanta Bar Foundation Lawyers Club of Atlanta, Past President Graduate, Leadership Atlanta, Class of 2015 Master, Joseph Henry Lumpkin Inn of Court, 2009 - Present Fellow, The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, and serves and an appointed member of the ACTEC Fiduciary Litigation Committee","searchable_name":"Letitia A. McDonald (Tish)","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":446028,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1169,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach McEntyre is a crisis-tested litigator. For two decades, he has represented clients in the technology,\u0026nbsp;financial services, insurance, food and beverage, energy, and healthcare industries in their most sensitive class actions, consumer protection matters,\u0026nbsp;and business disputes. He is a leading authority on the defense of high-stakes consumer class actions and \"viral\" litigation and government enforcement action.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has led the defense in hundreds of class actions\u0026nbsp;and in consumer protection litigation and investigations launched by government actors.\u0026nbsp;His matters almost always implicate core business practices, critical public relations considerations, and federal or state regulatory scrutiny. Zach\u0026nbsp;has defeated class certification or won on the merits in cases asserting claims under the federal and state RICO statutes, California's Unfair Competition Law, New York's GBL sections 349 and 350, the Consumer Fraud Acts in Illinois and New Jersey, and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, among others. He has beaten back claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (and state analogs), the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (and state analogs), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Information Privacy Act, and every imaginable common-law privacy tort. He has litigated in federal or state courts in nearly every state. Zach's adversaries (and sometimes eventual negotiating partners) have included every leading class action plaintiff's firm, state AGs, activist district attorneys, and federal and state regulators (such as the CFPB and the New York Department of Financial Services).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his class action practice, Zach handles all manner of commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp;In all of his matters, Zach focuses on working with his clients to identify, right away, the client's business objectives--and then to devise and execute strategies to satisfy those objectives. Those objectives sometimes call for early resolution. Zach is the rare courtroom lawyer who can readily recalibrate from a singular eye for victory in court to a cleareyed assessment of risk and an ability to achieve optimal negotiated outcomes. Whether in the courtroom or across the negotiating table, Zach relies on trial-ready litigation strategy and rock-solid credibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach is one of the leaders of the firm's national class action practice and its consumer financial services litigation group. He is a regular author and speaker on cutting-edge litigation issues. He is on the Board of Directors for the Atlanta Volunteers Lawyers Foundation, a former Board member for the Georgia Law Center for the Homeless, and a proud member of the Stonewall Bar\u0026nbsp;Association of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"zachary-mcentyre","email":"zmcentyre@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained voluntary dismissal of lawsuit filed by Alameda County District Attorney against leading automobile insurers and vendors asserting UCL claims relating to claims-adjustment practices (Alameda Cnty. (Calif.) Superior)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending leading global beverage company in putative class action under UCL and FAL regarding allegedly deceptive marketing of milk products (Central District of California)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in three putative class actions challenging specific adjustment applied in total-loss valuations on behalf of leading automobile insurer (Southern District of Iowa, Eastern District of North Carolina, District of Arizona)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a groundbreaking victory on summary judgment for a consumer reporting agency in a putative nationwide class action challenging the accuracy of OFAC indicators in purported consumer reports (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of insurtech company, defeated class certification in multidefendant putative nationwide class action alleging RICO violations in connection with sales practices (Southern District of California)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in long-running putative class action against natural gas supplier alleging violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (Cook Cty. (Ill.) Chancery Court)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeployed novel Article III standing argument to defeat class certification on behalf of leading global beverage company in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Southern District of Florida)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency challenging reporting of \"authorized user\" accounts, convincing court plaintiff failed to allege a \"willful\" violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act as a matter of law (Northern District of Georgia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in multidefendant putative nationwide class action challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to bankruptcy (Southern District of Indiana)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon motions to dismiss in two putative class actions challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to COVID-era loan forbearances (Eastern District of New York and District of New Jersey)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification on behalf of a leading automobile insurer in two putative class actions challenging the accuracy of total-loss valuations (Middle District of Florida and Western District of Oklahoma)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for leading automobile insurer in class action relating to salvage vehicle practices (Southern District of Florida)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency alleging violations of \"permissible purpose\" provisions of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Northern District of Georgia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment on behalf of consumer reporting agency in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Eastern District of Virginia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented superregional bank, as replacement counsel, in putative class action asserting breach of contract claims in connection with savings accounts (Eastern District of Tennessee)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading national outdoor retailer in long-running class action challenging assessment of fees in connection with boat sales (Western District of Missouri)\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":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McEntyre","nick_name":"Zach","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Zachary","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Stars","detail":"Consumer Protection - Law 360"},{"title":"40 Under 40—Legal Rising Stars to Watch","detail":"Daily Report"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach McEntyre is a crisis-tested litigator. For two decades, he has represented clients in the technology,\u0026nbsp;financial services, insurance, food and beverage, energy, and healthcare industries in their most sensitive class actions, consumer protection matters,\u0026nbsp;and business disputes. He is a leading authority on the defense of high-stakes consumer class actions and \"viral\" litigation and government enforcement action.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has led the defense in hundreds of class actions\u0026nbsp;and in consumer protection litigation and investigations launched by government actors.\u0026nbsp;His matters almost always implicate core business practices, critical public relations considerations, and federal or state regulatory scrutiny. Zach\u0026nbsp;has defeated class certification or won on the merits in cases asserting claims under the federal and state RICO statutes, California's Unfair Competition Law, New York's GBL sections 349 and 350, the Consumer Fraud Acts in Illinois and New Jersey, and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, among others. He has beaten back claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (and state analogs), the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (and state analogs), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Information Privacy Act, and every imaginable common-law privacy tort. He has litigated in federal or state courts in nearly every state. Zach's adversaries (and sometimes eventual negotiating partners) have included every leading class action plaintiff's firm, state AGs, activist district attorneys, and federal and state regulators (such as the CFPB and the New York Department of Financial Services).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his class action practice, Zach handles all manner of commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp;In all of his matters, Zach focuses on working with his clients to identify, right away, the client's business objectives--and then to devise and execute strategies to satisfy those objectives. Those objectives sometimes call for early resolution. Zach is the rare courtroom lawyer who can readily recalibrate from a singular eye for victory in court to a cleareyed assessment of risk and an ability to achieve optimal negotiated outcomes. Whether in the courtroom or across the negotiating table, Zach relies on trial-ready litigation strategy and rock-solid credibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach is one of the leaders of the firm's national class action practice and its consumer financial services litigation group. He is a regular author and speaker on cutting-edge litigation issues. He is on the Board of Directors for the Atlanta Volunteers Lawyers Foundation, a former Board member for the Georgia Law Center for the Homeless, and a proud member of the Stonewall Bar\u0026nbsp;Association of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained voluntary dismissal of lawsuit filed by Alameda County District Attorney against leading automobile insurers and vendors asserting UCL claims relating to claims-adjustment practices (Alameda Cnty. (Calif.) Superior)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending leading global beverage company in putative class action under UCL and FAL regarding allegedly deceptive marketing of milk products (Central District of California)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in three putative class actions challenging specific adjustment applied in total-loss valuations on behalf of leading automobile insurer (Southern District of Iowa, Eastern District of North Carolina, District of Arizona)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a groundbreaking victory on summary judgment for a consumer reporting agency in a putative nationwide class action challenging the accuracy of OFAC indicators in purported consumer reports (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of insurtech company, defeated class certification in multidefendant putative nationwide class action alleging RICO violations in connection with sales practices (Southern District of California)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in long-running putative class action against natural gas supplier alleging violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (Cook Cty. (Ill.) Chancery Court)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeployed novel Article III standing argument to defeat class certification on behalf of leading global beverage company in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Southern District of Florida)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency challenging reporting of \"authorized user\" accounts, convincing court plaintiff failed to allege a \"willful\" violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act as a matter of law (Northern District of Georgia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in multidefendant putative nationwide class action challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to bankruptcy (Southern District of Indiana)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon motions to dismiss in two putative class actions challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to COVID-era loan forbearances (Eastern District of New York and District of New Jersey)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification on behalf of a leading automobile insurer in two putative class actions challenging the accuracy of total-loss valuations (Middle District of Florida and Western District of Oklahoma)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for leading automobile insurer in class action relating to salvage vehicle practices (Southern District of Florida)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency alleging violations of \"permissible purpose\" provisions of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Northern District of Georgia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment on behalf of consumer reporting agency in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Eastern District of Virginia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented superregional bank, as replacement counsel, in putative class action asserting breach of contract claims in connection with savings accounts (Eastern District of Tennessee)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading national outdoor retailer in long-running class action challenging assessment of fees in connection with boat sales (Western District of Missouri)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Stars","detail":"Consumer Protection - Law 360"},{"title":"40 Under 40—Legal Rising Stars to Watch","detail":"Daily Report"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1051}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-23T17:10:39.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T17:10:39.000Z","searchable_text":"McEntyre{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Stars\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Consumer Protection - Law 360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 Under 40—Legal Rising Stars to Watch\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Report\"}{{ FIELD }}Obtained voluntary dismissal of lawsuit filed by Alameda County District Attorney against leading automobile insurers and vendors asserting UCL claims relating to claims-adjustment practices (Alameda Cnty. (Calif.) Superior){{ FIELD }}Defending leading global beverage company in putative class action under UCL and FAL regarding allegedly deceptive marketing of milk products (Central District of California){{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in three putative class actions challenging specific adjustment applied in total-loss valuations on behalf of leading automobile insurer (Southern District of Iowa, Eastern District of North Carolina, District of Arizona){{ FIELD }}Won a groundbreaking victory on summary judgment for a consumer reporting agency in a putative nationwide class action challenging the accuracy of OFAC indicators in purported consumer reports (Eastern District of Pennsylvania){{ FIELD }}On behalf of insurtech company, defeated class certification in multidefendant putative nationwide class action alleging RICO violations in connection with sales practices (Southern District of California){{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in long-running putative class action against natural gas supplier alleging violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (Cook Cty. (Ill.) Chancery Court){{ FIELD }}Deployed novel Article III standing argument to defeat class certification on behalf of leading global beverage company in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Southern District of Florida){{ FIELD }}Won pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency challenging reporting of \"authorized user\" accounts, convincing court plaintiff failed to allege a \"willful\" violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act as a matter of law (Northern District of Georgia){{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment in multidefendant putative nationwide class action challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to bankruptcy (Southern District of Indiana){{ FIELD }}Won motions to dismiss in two putative class actions challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to COVID-era loan forbearances (Eastern District of New York and District of New Jersey){{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification on behalf of a leading automobile insurer in two putative class actions challenging the accuracy of total-loss valuations (Middle District of Florida and Western District of Oklahoma){{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment for leading automobile insurer in class action relating to salvage vehicle practices (Southern District of Florida){{ FIELD }}Won pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency alleging violations of \"permissible purpose\" provisions of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Northern District of Georgia){{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment on behalf of consumer reporting agency in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Eastern District of Virginia){{ FIELD }}Represented superregional bank, as replacement counsel, in putative class action asserting breach of contract claims in connection with savings accounts (Eastern District of Tennessee){{ FIELD }}Represented leading national outdoor retailer in long-running class action challenging assessment of fees in connection with boat sales (Western District of Missouri){{ FIELD }}Zach McEntyre is a crisis-tested litigator. For two decades, he has represented clients in the technology, financial services, insurance, food and beverage, energy, and healthcare industries in their most sensitive class actions, consumer protection matters, and business disputes. He is a leading authority on the defense of high-stakes consumer class actions and \"viral\" litigation and government enforcement action.  \nZach has led the defense in hundreds of class actions and in consumer protection litigation and investigations launched by government actors. His matters almost always implicate core business practices, critical public relations considerations, and federal or state regulatory scrutiny. Zach has defeated class certification or won on the merits in cases asserting claims under the federal and state RICO statutes, California's Unfair Competition Law, New York's GBL sections 349 and 350, the Consumer Fraud Acts in Illinois and New Jersey, and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, among others. He has beaten back claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (and state analogs), the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (and state analogs), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Information Privacy Act, and every imaginable common-law privacy tort. He has litigated in federal or state courts in nearly every state. Zach's adversaries (and sometimes eventual negotiating partners) have included every leading class action plaintiff's firm, state AGs, activist district attorneys, and federal and state regulators (such as the CFPB and the New York Department of Financial Services). \nIn addition to his class action practice, Zach handles all manner of commercial disputes. In all of his matters, Zach focuses on working with his clients to identify, right away, the client's business objectives--and then to devise and execute strategies to satisfy those objectives. Those objectives sometimes call for early resolution. Zach is the rare courtroom lawyer who can readily recalibrate from a singular eye for victory in court to a cleareyed assessment of risk and an ability to achieve optimal negotiated outcomes. Whether in the courtroom or across the negotiating table, Zach relies on trial-ready litigation strategy and rock-solid credibility.\nZach is one of the leaders of the firm's national class action practice and its consumer financial services litigation group. He is a regular author and speaker on cutting-edge litigation issues. He is on the Board of Directors for the Atlanta Volunteers Lawyers Foundation, a former Board member for the Georgia Law Center for the Homeless, and a proud member of the Stonewall Bar Association of Georgia. Partner Rising Stars Consumer Protection - Law 360 40 Under 40—Legal Rising Stars to Watch Daily Report University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Mercer University Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Obtained voluntary dismissal of lawsuit filed by Alameda County District Attorney against leading automobile insurers and vendors asserting UCL claims relating to claims-adjustment practices (Alameda Cnty. (Calif.) Superior) Defending leading global beverage company in putative class action under UCL and FAL regarding allegedly deceptive marketing of milk products (Central District of California) Defeated class certification in three putative class actions challenging specific adjustment applied in total-loss valuations on behalf of leading automobile insurer (Southern District of Iowa, Eastern District of North Carolina, District of Arizona) Won a groundbreaking victory on summary judgment for a consumer reporting agency in a putative nationwide class action challenging the accuracy of OFAC indicators in purported consumer reports (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) On behalf of insurtech company, defeated class certification in multidefendant putative nationwide class action alleging RICO violations in connection with sales practices (Southern District of California) Defeated class certification in long-running putative class action against natural gas supplier alleging violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (Cook Cty. (Ill.) Chancery Court) Deployed novel Article III standing argument to defeat class certification on behalf of leading global beverage company in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Southern District of Florida) Won pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency challenging reporting of \"authorized user\" accounts, convincing court plaintiff failed to allege a \"willful\" violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act as a matter of law (Northern District of Georgia) Won summary judgment in multidefendant putative nationwide class action challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to bankruptcy (Southern District of Indiana) Won motions to dismiss in two putative class actions challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to COVID-era loan forbearances (Eastern District of New York and District of New Jersey) Defeated class certification on behalf of a leading automobile insurer in two putative class actions challenging the accuracy of total-loss valuations (Middle District of Florida and Western District of Oklahoma) Won summary judgment for leading automobile insurer in class action relating to salvage vehicle practices (Southern District of Florida) Won pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency alleging violations of \"permissible purpose\" provisions of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Northern District of Georgia) Won summary judgment on behalf of consumer reporting agency in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Eastern District of Virginia) Represented superregional bank, as replacement counsel, in putative class action asserting breach of contract claims in connection with savings accounts (Eastern District of Tennessee) Represented leading national outdoor retailer in long-running class action challenging assessment of fees in connection with boat sales (Western District of Missouri)","searchable_name":"Zachary A. McEntyre (Zach)","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":437140,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7216,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew D. McGill is a leader in arbitral award and judgment enforcement and an accomplished appellate advocate who handles civil litigation appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States and courts of appeals around the country. Over the last 20+ years, Matt has argued five cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and participated in many more, including several high-profile triumphs over foreign sovereigns.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA three-time \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(The AmLaw Litigation Daily\u003c/em\u003e), Matt is consistently ranked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA in Nationwide Appellate Law\u003c/em\u003e (2007-2025) and has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2020 \u0026ldquo;Litigation Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; for his pioneering work enforcing judgments against foreign sovereigns. Most recently, Matthew has been named to \u003cem\u003eLawdragon\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Litigators in America\u0026rdquo; guide (2024-2025) and was listed as a \u0026ldquo;Leading Global Litigator\u0026rdquo; for 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong his many achievements, in 2020, Matthew successfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Previously, he successfully resolved NML Capital\u0026rsquo;s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the \u003cem\u003eFinancial Times \u003c/em\u003ecalled \u0026ldquo;the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.\u0026rdquo; His current case load includes public enforcement matters against the governments of Argentina, India, Iran, Spain, and Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his arbitral award enforcement and appellate practice, Matthew is highly regarded for his work at the intersection of sport and gaming. He is featured in the 2024 edition of \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e for Gaming Law and, for his work toward legalizing sports wagering and confining the Wire Act to its intended scope, Matthew has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as a 2019 Sports Law \u0026ldquo;MVP\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;2020 Sports \u0026amp; Entertainment Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; by The \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior entering private practice, Matthew served as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice. He clerked for the Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"matthew-mcgill","email":"matthew.mcgill@kslaw.com ","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eInternational Disputes\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolved NML Capital\u0026rsquo;s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;called \u0026ldquo;the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained $1 billion judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran for victims of the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading U.S. enforcement against the Kingdom of Spain of several arbitral awards redressing violations of the Energy Charter Treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading global enforcement of arbitral awards against the Government of India and the Republic of Argentina.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eSupreme Court\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCC/Devas v. Antrix Corp.\u003c/em\u003e (2025) \u0026ndash; Arguing this case before the Supreme Court, Matt persuaded the Court to reject a lower court ruling that had found no jurisdiction to hear an enforcement action against one of India\u0026rsquo;s state-owed entities.\u0026nbsp; Matt\u0026rsquo;s 9-0 victory safeguarded the ability of arbitral award holders to bring enforcement actions in the United States against foreign sovereigns and their state-owned entities. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpati v. Republic of Sudan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2020) \u0026ndash; Matt successfully argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and secured a ruling that \u0026ldquo;unanimously reinstated as much as $4.3 billion in punitive damages awarded against Sudan\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eNew York Times\u003c/em\u003e) setting the stage for the resolution of the Embassy bombing claims and the United States\u0026rsquo; delisting of Sudan as a state-sponsor of terrorism.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePuerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2016) \u0026ndash; Arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of creditors that found themselves on the leading edge of Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s debt crisis, Matthew successfully defended an injunction invalidating Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s emergency municipal bankruptcy legislation. The ruling protected bondholders against the \u0026ldquo;chance that the territory could write its own bankruptcy plan\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eWall Street Journal\u003c/em\u003e) and ensured that Congress would retain control over Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s fiscal rescue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBank Markazi v. Peterson\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2016) \u0026ndash; In this important separation-of-powers case, Matthew represented victims of the 1983 Beirut Marine Corps Barracks Bombing who hold judgments against Iran. Ruling in favor of the Beirut Marines, the Supreme Court rejected arguments from Iran\u0026rsquo;s central bank that Congress had impermissibly invaded the province of the Judicial Branch by authorizing victims of terrorism to seize certain central bank assets. The ruling allowed nearly $2 billion to be distributed to Iran\u0026rsquo;s victims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArgentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2014) \u0026ndash; The Supreme Court\u0026rsquo;s decision in this case confirmed the availability of broad discovery to enforce judgments against foreign sovereigns, empowering creditors to seek information concerning the debtor nation\u0026rsquo;s assets anywhere in the world.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eSports and Gaming\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the effort of the Governor of New Jersey to legalize sports wagering in the State, culminating in the Supreme Court\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;historic decision\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eSports Illustrated\u003c/em\u003e) in \u003cem\u003eMurphy v. NCAA\u003c/em\u003e that struck down the federal law that had prohibited states other than Nevada from legalizing sports betting. By establishing that the federal government has no power to \u0026ldquo;dictate what a state legislature may and may not do,\u0026rdquo; this \u0026ldquo;landmark ruling\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUSA Today\u003c/em\u003e) safeguards the power of States to govern themselves and cleared the path for States across the country to legalize sports wagering.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the technology provider for the internet-based operations of the New Hampshire Lottery, and secured a judgment that the Wire Act covered only sports betting, and successfully defended that judgment on appeal. The ruling safeguarded \u0026ldquo;the entire online gambling industry as well as multi-state lotteries such as Powerball\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eAm Law Litigation Daily\u003c/em\u003e) from an arbitrary change in government policy.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":38,"guid":"38.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":131,"guid":"131.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1166,"guid":"1166.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McGill","nick_name":"Matt","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","years_held":"2003 - 2004"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","years_held":"2000 - 2002"}],"first_name":"Matthew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1904,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2000-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for Nationwide Appellate Law","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners, 2025"},{"title":"500 Leading Litigators in America","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Work in Gaming Law","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2024"},{"title":"Litigation and Sports Trailblazer","detail":"The National Law Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Sports Law MVP","detail":"Law360, 2019"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-mcgill-7737564/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew D. McGill is a leader in arbitral award and judgment enforcement and an accomplished appellate advocate who handles civil litigation appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States and courts of appeals around the country. Over the last 20+ years, Matt has argued five cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and participated in many more, including several high-profile triumphs over foreign sovereigns.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA three-time \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(The AmLaw Litigation Daily\u003c/em\u003e), Matt is consistently ranked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA in Nationwide Appellate Law\u003c/em\u003e (2007-2025) and has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2020 \u0026ldquo;Litigation Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; for his pioneering work enforcing judgments against foreign sovereigns. Most recently, Matthew has been named to \u003cem\u003eLawdragon\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Litigators in America\u0026rdquo; guide (2024-2025) and was listed as a \u0026ldquo;Leading Global Litigator\u0026rdquo; for 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong his many achievements, in 2020, Matthew successfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Previously, he successfully resolved NML Capital\u0026rsquo;s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the \u003cem\u003eFinancial Times \u003c/em\u003ecalled \u0026ldquo;the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.\u0026rdquo; His current case load includes public enforcement matters against the governments of Argentina, India, Iran, Spain, and Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his arbitral award enforcement and appellate practice, Matthew is highly regarded for his work at the intersection of sport and gaming. He is featured in the 2024 edition of \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e for Gaming Law and, for his work toward legalizing sports wagering and confining the Wire Act to its intended scope, Matthew has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as a 2019 Sports Law \u0026ldquo;MVP\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;2020 Sports \u0026amp; Entertainment Trailblazer\u0026rdquo; by The \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior entering private practice, Matthew served as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice. He clerked for the Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eInternational Disputes\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolved NML Capital\u0026rsquo;s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;called \u0026ldquo;the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained $1 billion judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran for victims of the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading U.S. enforcement against the Kingdom of Spain of several arbitral awards redressing violations of the Energy Charter Treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading global enforcement of arbitral awards against the Government of India and the Republic of Argentina.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eSupreme Court\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCC/Devas v. Antrix Corp.\u003c/em\u003e (2025) \u0026ndash; Arguing this case before the Supreme Court, Matt persuaded the Court to reject a lower court ruling that had found no jurisdiction to hear an enforcement action against one of India\u0026rsquo;s state-owed entities.\u0026nbsp; Matt\u0026rsquo;s 9-0 victory safeguarded the ability of arbitral award holders to bring enforcement actions in the United States against foreign sovereigns and their state-owned entities. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOpati v. Republic of Sudan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2020) \u0026ndash; Matt successfully argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and secured a ruling that \u0026ldquo;unanimously reinstated as much as $4.3 billion in punitive damages awarded against Sudan\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eNew York Times\u003c/em\u003e) setting the stage for the resolution of the Embassy bombing claims and the United States\u0026rsquo; delisting of Sudan as a state-sponsor of terrorism.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePuerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2016) \u0026ndash; Arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of creditors that found themselves on the leading edge of Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s debt crisis, Matthew successfully defended an injunction invalidating Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s emergency municipal bankruptcy legislation. The ruling protected bondholders against the \u0026ldquo;chance that the territory could write its own bankruptcy plan\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eWall Street Journal\u003c/em\u003e) and ensured that Congress would retain control over Puerto Rico\u0026rsquo;s fiscal rescue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBank Markazi v. Peterson\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2016) \u0026ndash; In this important separation-of-powers case, Matthew represented victims of the 1983 Beirut Marine Corps Barracks Bombing who hold judgments against Iran. Ruling in favor of the Beirut Marines, the Supreme Court rejected arguments from Iran\u0026rsquo;s central bank that Congress had impermissibly invaded the province of the Judicial Branch by authorizing victims of terrorism to seize certain central bank assets. The ruling allowed nearly $2 billion to be distributed to Iran\u0026rsquo;s victims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArgentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2014) \u0026ndash; The Supreme Court\u0026rsquo;s decision in this case confirmed the availability of broad discovery to enforce judgments against foreign sovereigns, empowering creditors to seek information concerning the debtor nation\u0026rsquo;s assets anywhere in the world.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cu\u003eSports and Gaming\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the effort of the Governor of New Jersey to legalize sports wagering in the State, culminating in the Supreme Court\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;historic decision\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eSports Illustrated\u003c/em\u003e) in \u003cem\u003eMurphy v. NCAA\u003c/em\u003e that struck down the federal law that had prohibited states other than Nevada from legalizing sports betting. By establishing that the federal government has no power to \u0026ldquo;dictate what a state legislature may and may not do,\u0026rdquo; this \u0026ldquo;landmark ruling\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUSA Today\u003c/em\u003e) safeguards the power of States to govern themselves and cleared the path for States across the country to legalize sports wagering.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the technology provider for the internet-based operations of the New Hampshire Lottery, and secured a judgment that the Wire Act covered only sports betting, and successfully defended that judgment on appeal. The ruling safeguarded \u0026ldquo;the entire online gambling industry as well as multi-state lotteries such as Powerball\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eAm Law Litigation Daily\u003c/em\u003e) from an arbitrary change in government policy.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for Nationwide Appellate Law","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners, 2025"},{"title":"500 Leading Litigators in America","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Work in Gaming Law","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2024"},{"title":"Litigation and Sports Trailblazer","detail":"The National Law Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Sports Law MVP","detail":"Law360, 2019"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12931}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-11T18:32:36.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-11T18:32:36.000Z","searchable_text":"McGill{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Nationwide Appellate Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"500 Leading Litigators in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Work in Gaming Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation and Sports Trailblazer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The National Law Journal, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Sports Law MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}International Disputes{{ FIELD }}Successfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.{{ FIELD }}Successfully resolved NML Capital’s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the Financial Times called “the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.{{ FIELD }}Obtained $1 billion judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran for victims of the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.{{ FIELD }}Leading U.S. enforcement against the Kingdom of Spain of several arbitral awards redressing violations of the Energy Charter Treaty.{{ FIELD }}Leading global enforcement of arbitral awards against the Government of India and the Republic of Argentina.{{ FIELD }}Supreme Court{{ FIELD }}CC/Devas v. Antrix Corp. (2025) – Arguing this case before the Supreme Court, Matt persuaded the Court to reject a lower court ruling that had found no jurisdiction to hear an enforcement action against one of India’s state-owed entities.  Matt’s 9-0 victory safeguarded the ability of arbitral award holders to bring enforcement actions in the United States against foreign sovereigns and their state-owned entities.  {{ FIELD }}Opati v. Republic of Sudan (2020) – Matt successfully argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and secured a ruling that “unanimously reinstated as much as $4.3 billion in punitive damages awarded against Sudan” (New York Times) setting the stage for the resolution of the Embassy bombing claims and the United States’ delisting of Sudan as a state-sponsor of terrorism.{{ FIELD }}Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust (2016) – Arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of creditors that found themselves on the leading edge of Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, Matthew successfully defended an injunction invalidating Puerto Rico’s emergency municipal bankruptcy legislation. The ruling protected bondholders against the “chance that the territory could write its own bankruptcy plan” (Wall Street Journal) and ensured that Congress would retain control over Puerto Rico’s fiscal rescue.{{ FIELD }}Bank Markazi v. Peterson (2016) – In this important separation-of-powers case, Matthew represented victims of the 1983 Beirut Marine Corps Barracks Bombing who hold judgments against Iran. Ruling in favor of the Beirut Marines, the Supreme Court rejected arguments from Iran’s central bank that Congress had impermissibly invaded the province of the Judicial Branch by authorizing victims of terrorism to seize certain central bank assets. The ruling allowed nearly $2 billion to be distributed to Iran’s victims.{{ FIELD }}Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. (2014) – The Supreme Court’s decision in this case confirmed the availability of broad discovery to enforce judgments against foreign sovereigns, empowering creditors to seek information concerning the debtor nation’s assets anywhere in the world.{{ FIELD }}Sports and Gaming{{ FIELD }}Led the effort of the Governor of New Jersey to legalize sports wagering in the State, culminating in the Supreme Court’s “historic decision” (Sports Illustrated) in Murphy v. NCAA that struck down the federal law that had prohibited states other than Nevada from legalizing sports betting. By establishing that the federal government has no power to “dictate what a state legislature may and may not do,” this “landmark ruling” (USA Today) safeguards the power of States to govern themselves and cleared the path for States across the country to legalize sports wagering.{{ FIELD }}Represented the technology provider for the internet-based operations of the New Hampshire Lottery, and secured a judgment that the Wire Act covered only sports betting, and successfully defended that judgment on appeal. The ruling safeguarded “the entire online gambling industry as well as multi-state lotteries such as Powerball” (Am Law Litigation Daily) from an arbitrary change in government policy.{{ FIELD }}Matthew D. McGill is a leader in arbitral award and judgment enforcement and an accomplished appellate advocate who handles civil litigation appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States and courts of appeals around the country. Over the last 20+ years, Matt has argued five cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and participated in many more, including several high-profile triumphs over foreign sovereigns.\nA three-time “Litigator of the Week” (The AmLaw Litigation Daily), Matt is consistently ranked by Chambers USA in Nationwide Appellate Law (2007-2025) and has been recognized by The National Law Journal as a 2020 “Litigation Trailblazer” for his pioneering work enforcing judgments against foreign sovereigns. Most recently, Matthew has been named to Lawdragon’s “500 Leading Litigators in America” guide (2024-2025) and was listed as a “Leading Global Litigator” for 2025.\nAmong his many achievements, in 2020, Matthew successfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Previously, he successfully resolved NML Capital’s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the Financial Times called “the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring.” His current case load includes public enforcement matters against the governments of Argentina, India, Iran, Spain, and Venezuela.\nIn addition to his arbitral award enforcement and appellate practice, Matthew is highly regarded for his work at the intersection of sport and gaming. He is featured in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America for Gaming Law and, for his work toward legalizing sports wagering and confining the Wire Act to its intended scope, Matthew has been recognized by Law360 as a 2019 Sports Law “MVP” and “2020 Sports \u0026amp; Entertainment Trailblazer” by The National Law Journal.\nPrior entering private practice, Matthew served as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice. He clerked for the Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Partner Ranked for Nationwide Appellate Law Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, 2025 500 Leading Litigators in America Lawdragon, 2025 Recognized for Work in Gaming Law Best Lawyers in America, 2024 Litigation and Sports Trailblazer The National Law Journal, 2020 Sports Law MVP Law360, 2019 Dartmouth College  Stanford University Stanford Law School District of Columbia New York Law Clerk, Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Law Clerk, Hon. Joseph M. McLaughlin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit International Disputes Successfully negotiated a $335 million resolution of terrorism claims against the Republic of Sudan arising from the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Successfully resolved NML Capital’s multi-billion dollar claims against the Republic of Argentina after what the Financial Times called “the trial of the century in sovereign debt restructuring. Obtained $1 billion judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran for victims of the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. Leading U.S. enforcement against the Kingdom of Spain of several arbitral awards redressing violations of the Energy Charter Treaty. Leading global enforcement of arbitral awards against the Government of India and the Republic of Argentina. Supreme Court CC/Devas v. Antrix Corp. (2025) – Arguing this case before the Supreme Court, Matt persuaded the Court to reject a lower court ruling that had found no jurisdiction to hear an enforcement action against one of India’s state-owed entities.  Matt’s 9-0 victory safeguarded the ability of arbitral award holders to bring enforcement actions in the United States against foreign sovereigns and their state-owned entities.   Opati v. Republic of Sudan (2020) – Matt successfully argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and secured a ruling that “unanimously reinstated as much as $4.3 billion in punitive damages awarded against Sudan” (New York Times) setting the stage for the resolution of the Embassy bombing claims and the United States’ delisting of Sudan as a state-sponsor of terrorism. Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust (2016) – Arguing before the Supreme Court on behalf of creditors that found themselves on the leading edge of Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, Matthew successfully defended an injunction invalidating Puerto Rico’s emergency municipal bankruptcy legislation. The ruling protected bondholders against the “chance that the territory could write its own bankruptcy plan” (Wall Street Journal) and ensured that Congress would retain control over Puerto Rico’s fiscal rescue. Bank Markazi v. Peterson (2016) – In this important separation-of-powers case, Matthew represented victims of the 1983 Beirut Marine Corps Barracks Bombing who hold judgments against Iran. Ruling in favor of the Beirut Marines, the Supreme Court rejected arguments from Iran’s central bank that Congress had impermissibly invaded the province of the Judicial Branch by authorizing victims of terrorism to seize certain central bank assets. The ruling allowed nearly $2 billion to be distributed to Iran’s victims. Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. (2014) – The Supreme Court’s decision in this case confirmed the availability of broad discovery to enforce judgments against foreign sovereigns, empowering creditors to seek information concerning the debtor nation’s assets anywhere in the world. Sports and Gaming Led the effort of the Governor of New Jersey to legalize sports wagering in the State, culminating in the Supreme Court’s “historic decision” (Sports Illustrated) in Murphy v. NCAA that struck down the federal law that had prohibited states other than Nevada from legalizing sports betting. By establishing that the federal government has no power to “dictate what a state legislature may and may not do,” this “landmark ruling” (USA Today) safeguards the power of States to govern themselves and cleared the path for States across the country to legalize sports wagering. Represented the technology provider for the internet-based operations of the New Hampshire Lottery, and secured a judgment that the Wire Act covered only sports betting, and successfully defended that judgment on appeal. The ruling safeguarded “the entire online gambling industry as well as multi-state lotteries such as Powerball” (Am Law Litigation Daily) from an arbitrary change in government policy.","searchable_name":"Matthew D. McGill (Matt)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445596,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7305,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Melsheimer is the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Head of Trial and serves as the Managing Partner of the Dallas office. Described as \u0026ldquo;one of the most sought after trial lawyers in the country\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAmerican Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003epublishers, \u0026ldquo;a celebrated storyteller\u0026rdquo; by the magazine\u0026rsquo;s founder, and a \u0026ldquo;game-changing ringer\u0026rdquo; by another national legal publication, Tom is the all-too-rare true trial lawyer\u0026mdash;one who can try any case, whatever the claims or subject matter. He has remarkably broad and comprehensive jury trial experience. He has tried civil cases involving breach of contract, business torts and fraud, trade secret, patent, antitrust, securities, product liability/mass tort, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;claims. He also has tried criminal cases involving antitrust, healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, and kidnapping. Tom is the author of a widely acclaimed book on trying cases before a jury,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOn the Jury Trial\u003c/em\u003e, now in its second edition. Legendary trial lawyer and law professor Mike Tigar has called it a \u0026ldquo;book every lawyer should read.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and he is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He has been recognized for his litigation prowess by numerous outside ranking organizations and publications, including \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Chambers Global, Benchmark Litigation US, The Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;, Best Lawyers Texas, Lawdragon, Super Lawyers, \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e. In August 2024, Tom was named as a finalist for \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s 2024 National Winning Litigators award. In 2025, he made the inaugural list of \u003cem\u003eBloomberg\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Unrivaled\u0026rdquo; litigators series. Tom is one of a handful of trial lawyers in the country and the only one in Texas who has been recognized as \u0026ldquo;Band 1\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e in five different categories including Commercial Litigation, White Collar, and Intellectual Property.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom tries lawsuits in state and federal courts before both judges and juries and involving civil claims and criminal charges. On the civil side, he has tried to verdict cases involving commercial, business tort, fraud, product liability, mass tort, securities, antitrust, patent infringement, trade secrets, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e/FCA claims. On the criminal side, he has tried to verdict cases involving healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, copyright infringement, aggravated sexual assault, and kidnapping. Tom\u0026rsquo;s jury trials include successfully representing plaintiffs and defendants all over the U.S. and throughout Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining private practice, Tom served as a federal prosecutor in Dallas. He successfully prosecuted the largest bank fraud case ever undertaken in Texas, and he obtained one of the largest RICO verdicts in Texas history. The Department of Justice honored Tom as one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s top prosecutors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMajor Cases: \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Tom was lead counsel in the public corruption retrial of Dallas developer \u003cstrong\u003eRuel Hamilton\u003c/strong\u003e, who had previously been convicted and sentenced to seven years incarceration. In the retrial, following reversal of his earlier conviction, Tom obtained a complete acquittal on all charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2023, Tom was lead trial counsel in defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAlphatec\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a bitter dispute with medical device rival Nuvasive, involving allegations that Alphatec tortiously interfered with NuVasive\u0026rsquo;s distributor agreements and that it also interfered with its agreements with sales representatives in certain states. In a nearly 3-month trial in California Superior Court in San Diego, he helped achieve a resounding victory by successfully defeating NuVasive Inc.\u0026rsquo;s $49 million actual damages claim (and multiples of that in alleged punitive damages).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn August 2023, Tom led a team that prevailed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(USWS) in patent infringement litigation brought by competitor Halliburton relating to hydraulic fracturing software and methods and physical systems related to the operation of USWS\u0026rsquo;s fracturing sites. Tom won a complete defense jury verdict finding of no infringement by the client and that two asserted patents were invalid. The verdict cleared USWS of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s infringement allegations and damages demand of over $76 million.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2022, Tom represented \u003cstrong\u003eKent Thiry,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eformer CEO of Fortune 500 company DaVita, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, in a first-of-its-kind criminal antitrust case alleging horizontal market allocation in the labor market. After an eight-day trial in federal court in Colorado, the jury acquitted Thiry on all counts. Many opined the win would influence whether the Department of Justice would continue to pursue enforcement allegations in antitrust matters involving labor-market collusion and, as it turns out, the DOJ has largely abandoned this theory of prosecution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter a seven-week jury trial in 2019, for his client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDr. Nick Nicholson\u003c/strong\u003e, Tom successfully obtained the only acquittal in a 21-defendant federal healthcare fraud case involving allegations of $40 million in bribes and kickbacks. The so-called\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eForest Park\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;case was the largest healthcare fraud investigation ever undertaken by federal authorities in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebillionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC. The jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court. Tom has represented Mr. Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks, and other Cuban business interests since 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;and co-counsel from the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office helped the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eState of Texas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;secure\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ethe largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history\u003c/em\u003e. The $158 million settlement reached during trial followed claims of illegal marketing practices associated with the prescription drug Risperdal\u0026reg;.\u0026nbsp;His work in the case was featured in a 15-part series authored by acclaimed legal journalist Steven Brill and published by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHuffington Post\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 2015.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026rsquo;s $178 million jury trial win on behalf of the plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eMartin\u003c/strong\u003e in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, et al.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;included nearly $150 million in punitive damages. The jury award in the breach of fiduciary duty case was named one of the \u0026ldquo;Top Verdicts of 2009\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, in addition to being recognized as one of the year\u0026rsquo;s three largest verdicts in Texas and the year\u0026rsquo;s largest verdict in Dallas County. On four other occasions, Tom\u0026rsquo;s cases have been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNLJ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;among the nation\u0026rsquo;s top cases, including the defense of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;action involving a government contract where his clients defeated a claim of fraudulent overpayment and won their affirmative claim that they had been underpaid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a mass tort case, Tom successfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by over 12,000 plaintiffs in state and federal multi-district litigation involving bet-the-company allegations that the client\u0026rsquo;s medical device was responsible for thousands of deaths and serious injuries. The first bellwether case in state court in Massachusetts\u0026nbsp;ended in a complete defense verdict after a high-profile jury trial, leading to the bulk of the cases settling thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"tom-melsheimer","email":"tmelsheimer@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which\u0026nbsp;claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability\u0026nbsp;Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Noryian\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.T.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e et al. v. Morath, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks.\u0026nbsp;After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u0026rsquo;s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBadger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJohn Doe v. Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees to company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSEC v. Mark Cuban\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series \u0026ldquo;Nash Bridges,\u0026rdquo; in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor, and the case settled before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents\u0026rsquo; validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo\u0026rsquo;s position on willfulness in patent litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScript Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int\u0026rsquo;l, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its \u0026ldquo;Fresenius 2008K\u0026rdquo; hemodialysis machine).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008\u0026ndash;2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDeep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchroeder v. Wildenthal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI\u0026rsquo;s valuable trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel v. Samsung,\u003c/em\u003eDC-96-08262 (193rd\u0026nbsp;Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million.\u0026nbsp;The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAccolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCarreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Gary Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRadman v. Weil Gotshal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUniversal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTaco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Lipscomb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecase alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA.\u0026nbsp;Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Faulkner, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Melsheimer","nick_name":"Thomas","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Judge Homer Thornberry, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"1986 - 1986"}],"first_name":"Thomas","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1986-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"“Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026"},{"title":"IAM Global Leader","detail":"IAM, 2021-2026"},{"title":"Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Leading Trial Lawyer”","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024"},{"title":"“100 Managing Partners you Need to Know” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Environmental Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global Litigators” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Super Lawyers, Texas","detail":"2003-2025"},{"title":"“Trials MVP”","detail":"Law360, 2024-2025"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Hall of Fame” ","detail":"D Magazine, 2022"},{"title":"“Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents","detail":"Who’s Who Legal, 2022"},{"title":"Patents Leader","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024"},{"title":"Lifetime Achievement Award","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Texas Trailblazers","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2019"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/tommelsheimer/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Melsheimer is the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Head of Trial and serves as the Managing Partner of the Dallas office. Described as \u0026ldquo;one of the most sought after trial lawyers in the country\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAmerican Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003epublishers, \u0026ldquo;a celebrated storyteller\u0026rdquo; by the magazine\u0026rsquo;s founder, and a \u0026ldquo;game-changing ringer\u0026rdquo; by another national legal publication, Tom is the all-too-rare true trial lawyer\u0026mdash;one who can try any case, whatever the claims or subject matter. He has remarkably broad and comprehensive jury trial experience. He has tried civil cases involving breach of contract, business torts and fraud, trade secret, patent, antitrust, securities, product liability/mass tort, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;claims. He also has tried criminal cases involving antitrust, healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, and kidnapping. Tom is the author of a widely acclaimed book on trying cases before a jury,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOn the Jury Trial\u003c/em\u003e, now in its second edition. Legendary trial lawyer and law professor Mike Tigar has called it a \u0026ldquo;book every lawyer should read.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and he is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He has been recognized for his litigation prowess by numerous outside ranking organizations and publications, including \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Chambers Global, Benchmark Litigation US, The Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;, Best Lawyers Texas, Lawdragon, Super Lawyers, \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e. In August 2024, Tom was named as a finalist for \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s 2024 National Winning Litigators award. In 2025, he made the inaugural list of \u003cem\u003eBloomberg\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Unrivaled\u0026rdquo; litigators series. Tom is one of a handful of trial lawyers in the country and the only one in Texas who has been recognized as \u0026ldquo;Band 1\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e in five different categories including Commercial Litigation, White Collar, and Intellectual Property.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom tries lawsuits in state and federal courts before both judges and juries and involving civil claims and criminal charges. On the civil side, he has tried to verdict cases involving commercial, business tort, fraud, product liability, mass tort, securities, antitrust, patent infringement, trade secrets, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e/FCA claims. On the criminal side, he has tried to verdict cases involving healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, copyright infringement, aggravated sexual assault, and kidnapping. Tom\u0026rsquo;s jury trials include successfully representing plaintiffs and defendants all over the U.S. and throughout Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining private practice, Tom served as a federal prosecutor in Dallas. He successfully prosecuted the largest bank fraud case ever undertaken in Texas, and he obtained one of the largest RICO verdicts in Texas history. The Department of Justice honored Tom as one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s top prosecutors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMajor Cases: \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Tom was lead counsel in the public corruption retrial of Dallas developer \u003cstrong\u003eRuel Hamilton\u003c/strong\u003e, who had previously been convicted and sentenced to seven years incarceration. In the retrial, following reversal of his earlier conviction, Tom obtained a complete acquittal on all charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2023, Tom was lead trial counsel in defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAlphatec\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a bitter dispute with medical device rival Nuvasive, involving allegations that Alphatec tortiously interfered with NuVasive\u0026rsquo;s distributor agreements and that it also interfered with its agreements with sales representatives in certain states. In a nearly 3-month trial in California Superior Court in San Diego, he helped achieve a resounding victory by successfully defeating NuVasive Inc.\u0026rsquo;s $49 million actual damages claim (and multiples of that in alleged punitive damages).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn August 2023, Tom led a team that prevailed for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(USWS) in patent infringement litigation brought by competitor Halliburton relating to hydraulic fracturing software and methods and physical systems related to the operation of USWS\u0026rsquo;s fracturing sites. Tom won a complete defense jury verdict finding of no infringement by the client and that two asserted patents were invalid. The verdict cleared USWS of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s infringement allegations and damages demand of over $76 million.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2022, Tom represented \u003cstrong\u003eKent Thiry,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eformer CEO of Fortune 500 company DaVita, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, in a first-of-its-kind criminal antitrust case alleging horizontal market allocation in the labor market. After an eight-day trial in federal court in Colorado, the jury acquitted Thiry on all counts. Many opined the win would influence whether the Department of Justice would continue to pursue enforcement allegations in antitrust matters involving labor-market collusion and, as it turns out, the DOJ has largely abandoned this theory of prosecution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter a seven-week jury trial in 2019, for his client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDr. Nick Nicholson\u003c/strong\u003e, Tom successfully obtained the only acquittal in a 21-defendant federal healthcare fraud case involving allegations of $40 million in bribes and kickbacks. The so-called\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eForest Park\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;case was the largest healthcare fraud investigation ever undertaken by federal authorities in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebillionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC. The jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court. Tom has represented Mr. Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks, and other Cuban business interests since 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026nbsp;and co-counsel from the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office helped the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eState of Texas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;secure\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ethe largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history\u003c/em\u003e. The $158 million settlement reached during trial followed claims of illegal marketing practices associated with the prescription drug Risperdal\u0026reg;.\u0026nbsp;His work in the case was featured in a 15-part series authored by acclaimed legal journalist Steven Brill and published by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHuffington Post\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 2015.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom\u0026rsquo;s $178 million jury trial win on behalf of the plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eMartin\u003c/strong\u003e in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, et al.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;included nearly $150 million in punitive damages. The jury award in the breach of fiduciary duty case was named one of the \u0026ldquo;Top Verdicts of 2009\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, in addition to being recognized as one of the year\u0026rsquo;s three largest verdicts in Texas and the year\u0026rsquo;s largest verdict in Dallas County. On four other occasions, Tom\u0026rsquo;s cases have been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNLJ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;among the nation\u0026rsquo;s top cases, including the defense of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;action involving a government contract where his clients defeated a claim of fraudulent overpayment and won their affirmative claim that they had been underpaid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a mass tort case, Tom successfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by over 12,000 plaintiffs in state and federal multi-district litigation involving bet-the-company allegations that the client\u0026rsquo;s medical device was responsible for thousands of deaths and serious injuries. The first bellwether case in state court in Massachusetts\u0026nbsp;ended in a complete defense verdict after a high-profile jury trial, leading to the bulk of the cases settling thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which\u0026nbsp;claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability\u0026nbsp;Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Noryian\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.T.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e et al. v. Morath, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks.\u0026nbsp;After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u0026rsquo;s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBadger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJohn Doe v. Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees to company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSEC v. Mark Cuban\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series \u0026ldquo;Nash Bridges,\u0026rdquo; in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor, and the case settled before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMartin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents\u0026rsquo; validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo\u0026rsquo;s position on willfulness in patent litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScript Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int\u0026rsquo;l, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its \u0026ldquo;Fresenius 2008K\u0026rdquo; hemodialysis machine).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008\u0026ndash;2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDeep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchroeder v. Wildenthal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI\u0026rsquo;s valuable trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlcatel v. Samsung,\u003c/em\u003eDC-96-08262 (193rd\u0026nbsp;Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million.\u0026nbsp;The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAccolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCarreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTexas Instruments v. Gary Johnson\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRadman v. Weil Gotshal, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUniversal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTaco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Lipscomb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecase alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA.\u0026nbsp;Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. Faulkner, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"“Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026"},{"title":"IAM Global Leader","detail":"IAM, 2021-2026"},{"title":"Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2007-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations","detail":"Chambers USA, 2018-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020-2025"},{"title":"Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025"},{"title":"“Leading Trial Lawyer”","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024"},{"title":"“100 Managing Partners you Need to Know” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023-2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Environmental Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global Litigators” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"Super Lawyers, Texas","detail":"2003-2025"},{"title":"“Trials MVP”","detail":"Law360, 2024-2025"},{"title":"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”","detail":"D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Hall of Fame” ","detail":"D Magazine, 2022"},{"title":"“Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents","detail":"Who’s Who Legal, 2022"},{"title":"Patents Leader","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024"},{"title":"Lifetime Achievement Award","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Texas Trailblazers","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2019"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13340}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-04T22:05:21.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-04T22:05:21.000Z","searchable_text":"Melsheimer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"IAM Global Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM, 2021-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2007-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2019-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Leading Trial Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“100 Managing Partners you Need to Know” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2022-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2023-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Environmental Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Global Litigators” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2003-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Trials MVP”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2024-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyers Hall of Fame” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Patents Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lifetime Achievement Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Trailblazers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS’ fracturing sites.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al. (D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts.{{ FIELD }}In Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability Litigation (MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Noryian (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement.{{ FIELD }}E.T., et al. v. Morath, et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law.{{ FIELD }}Flypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google’s infringement.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks. After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted.{{ FIELD }}America’s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al. (Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase.{{ FIELD }}Badger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP (Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial.{{ FIELD }}John Doe v. Company, Inc. (Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney’s fees to company.{{ FIELD }}Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud.{{ FIELD }}SEC v. Mark Cuban (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing.{{ FIELD }}State of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two.{{ FIELD }}Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.{{ FIELD }}Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million.{{ FIELD }}Rysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al. (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series “Nash Bridges,” in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client’s favor, and the case settled before trial.{{ FIELD }}Martin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages.{{ FIELD }}Halo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al. (D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents’ validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo’s position on willfulness in patent litigation.{{ FIELD }}YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Amerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim.{{ FIELD }}Script Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis (S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation.{{ FIELD }}Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its “Fresenius 2008K” hemodialysis machine).{{ FIELD }}Oasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}United States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008–2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Judge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston (Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election.{{ FIELD }}Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd. (Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant’s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal.{{ FIELD }}Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict.{{ FIELD }}Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought.{{ FIELD }}Hillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Schroeder v. Wildenthal, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}In re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks (S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Alcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history.{{ FIELD }}Texas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI’s valuable trade secrets.{{ FIELD }}EPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc. (D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets.{{ FIELD }}Alcatel v. Samsung,DC-96-08262 (193rd Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million. The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms.{{ FIELD }}Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Carreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories.{{ FIELD }}Texas Instruments v. Gary Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court.{{ FIELD }}Radman v. Weil Gotshal, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}Universal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}Taco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Lipscomb (N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government.{{ FIELD }}BancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract.{{ FIELD }}DSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}U.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in qui tam case alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA. Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment.{{ FIELD }}U.S. v. Faulkner, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.{{ FIELD }}Tom Melsheimer is the firm’s Global Head of Trial and serves as the Managing Partner of the Dallas office. Described as “one of the most sought after trial lawyers in the country” by American Lawyer’s publishers, “a celebrated storyteller” by the magazine’s founder, and a “game-changing ringer” by another national legal publication, Tom is the all-too-rare true trial lawyer—one who can try any case, whatever the claims or subject matter. He has remarkably broad and comprehensive jury trial experience. He has tried civil cases involving breach of contract, business torts and fraud, trade secret, patent, antitrust, securities, product liability/mass tort, and qui tam claims. He also has tried criminal cases involving antitrust, healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, and kidnapping. Tom is the author of a widely acclaimed book on trying cases before a jury, On the Jury Trial, now in its second edition. Legendary trial lawyer and law professor Mike Tigar has called it a “book every lawyer should read.” \nTom is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and he is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He has been recognized for his litigation prowess by numerous outside ranking organizations and publications, including Chambers USA, Chambers Global, Benchmark Litigation US, The Best Lawyers in America®, Best Lawyers Texas, Lawdragon, Super Lawyers, and The Legal 500 US. In August 2024, Tom was named as a finalist for The National Law Journal’s 2024 National Winning Litigators award. In 2025, he made the inaugural list of Bloomberg’s “Unrivaled” litigators series. Tom is one of a handful of trial lawyers in the country and the only one in Texas who has been recognized as “Band 1” by Chambers in five different categories including Commercial Litigation, White Collar, and Intellectual Property.\nTom tries lawsuits in state and federal courts before both judges and juries and involving civil claims and criminal charges. On the civil side, he has tried to verdict cases involving commercial, business tort, fraud, product liability, mass tort, securities, antitrust, patent infringement, trade secrets, and qui tam/FCA claims. On the criminal side, he has tried to verdict cases involving healthcare fraud, bank fraud, public corruption, copyright infringement, aggravated sexual assault, and kidnapping. Tom’s jury trials include successfully representing plaintiffs and defendants all over the U.S. and throughout Texas.\nPrior to joining private practice, Tom served as a federal prosecutor in Dallas. He successfully prosecuted the largest bank fraud case ever undertaken in Texas, and he obtained one of the largest RICO verdicts in Texas history. The Department of Justice honored Tom as one of the nation’s top prosecutors.\nMajor Cases: \nIn 2025, Tom was lead counsel in the public corruption retrial of Dallas developer Ruel Hamilton, who had previously been convicted and sentenced to seven years incarceration. In the retrial, following reversal of his earlier conviction, Tom obtained a complete acquittal on all charges.\nIn 2023, Tom was lead trial counsel in defense of Alphatec in a bitter dispute with medical device rival Nuvasive, involving allegations that Alphatec tortiously interfered with NuVasive’s distributor agreements and that it also interfered with its agreements with sales representatives in certain states. In a nearly 3-month trial in California Superior Court in San Diego, he helped achieve a resounding victory by successfully defeating NuVasive Inc.’s $49 million actual damages claim (and multiples of that in alleged punitive damages).\nIn August 2023, Tom led a team that prevailed for U.S. Well Services (USWS) in patent infringement litigation brought by competitor Halliburton relating to hydraulic fracturing software and methods and physical systems related to the operation of USWS’s fracturing sites. Tom won a complete defense jury verdict finding of no infringement by the client and that two asserted patents were invalid. The verdict cleared USWS of Halliburton’s infringement allegations and damages demand of over $76 million.\nIn 2022, Tom represented Kent Thiry, former CEO of Fortune 500 company DaVita, Inc., in a first-of-its-kind criminal antitrust case alleging horizontal market allocation in the labor market. After an eight-day trial in federal court in Colorado, the jury acquitted Thiry on all counts. Many opined the win would influence whether the Department of Justice would continue to pursue enforcement allegations in antitrust matters involving labor-market collusion and, as it turns out, the DOJ has largely abandoned this theory of prosecution.\nAfter a seven-week jury trial in 2019, for his client Dr. Nick Nicholson, Tom successfully obtained the only acquittal in a 21-defendant federal healthcare fraud case involving allegations of $40 million in bribes and kickbacks. The so-called Forest Park case was the largest healthcare fraud investigation ever undertaken by federal authorities in Texas.\nTom was lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC. The jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court. Tom has represented Mr. Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks, and other Cuban business interests since 2000.\nTom and co-counsel from the Texas Attorney General’s office helped the State of Texas secure the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history. The $158 million settlement reached during trial followed claims of illegal marketing practices associated with the prescription drug Risperdal®. His work in the case was featured in a 15-part series authored by acclaimed legal journalist Steven Brill and published by the Huffington Post in 2015.\nTom’s $178 million jury trial win on behalf of the plaintiff Martin in Martin v. NL Industries, et al., included nearly $150 million in punitive damages. The jury award in the breach of fiduciary duty case was named one of the “Top Verdicts of 2009” by The National Law Journal, in addition to being recognized as one of the year’s three largest verdicts in Texas and the year’s largest verdict in Dallas County. On four other occasions, Tom’s cases have been recognized by NLJ among the nation’s top cases, including the defense of a qui tam action involving a government contract where his clients defeated a claim of fraudulent overpayment and won their affirmative claim that they had been underpaid.\nIn a mass tort case, Tom successfully defended a healthcare company sued by over 12,000 plaintiffs in state and federal multi-district litigation involving bet-the-company allegations that the client’s medical device was responsible for thousands of deaths and serious injuries. The first bellwether case in state court in Massachusetts ended in a complete defense verdict after a high-profile jury trial, leading to the bulk of the cases settling thereafter. Partner “Lawyer of the Year” – Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”  Benchmark Litigation US, 2019 – 2026 “Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas” D CEO Magazine, 2026-2026 IAM Global Leader IAM, 2021-2026 Recognized in 8 categories: Antitrust, Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Criminal Defense: White-Collar, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Litigation – Securities, Qui Tam Law The Best Lawyers in America®, 2007-2025 Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Nationwide Chambers USA, 2018-2025 Band 1 – Trial Lawyer – Texas Chambers USA, 2018-2025 Band 1 – Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2007-2025 Band 1 – Litigation: General Commercial – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds Chambers USA, 2020-2025 Band 1 – Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations Chambers USA, 2018-2025 Band 3 – Intellectual Property – Nationwide Chambers USA, 2020-2025 Band 1 – Litigation: Trial Lawyers, USA Chambers Global, 2019-2025 Band 3 – Intellectual Property: Patent, USA Chambers Global, 2018-2025 “Key Lawyer” in Intellectual Property: Patents: Litigation The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025 “Key Lawyer” in General Commercial Disputes The Legal 500 US, 2018-2025 “Leading Trial Lawyer” The Legal 500 US, 2023-2024 Inducted into the 2024 Lawdragon “Hall of Fame” Lawdragon, 2024 “100 Managing Partners you Need to Know”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Litigators in America – Trial Law” Lawdragon, 2022-2025 “500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2023-2025 “500 Leading Environmental Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Energy Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Global Leaders in Crisis Management” Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Global Litigators”  Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2025 Super Lawyers, Texas 2003-2025 “Trials MVP” Law360, 2024-2025 “Top 500 Business Leaders in Dallas” D CEO Magazine, 2016–2023 “Best Lawyers Hall of Fame”  D Magazine, 2022 “Global Leader” for Commercial Litigation and IP–Patents Who’s Who Legal, 2022 Patents Leader WIPR Leaders, 2021, 2024 Lifetime Achievement Award Texas Lawyer, 2021 Texas Trailblazers Texas Lawyer, 2019 University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law School The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Texas Law Clerk, Honorable Judge Homer Thornberry, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As lead trial counsel, prevailed for USWS in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that USWS infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of UWS’ fracturing sites. U.S. v. DaVita, Inc, et al. (D. Colo.) Represented former DaVita CEO Kent Thiry as lead trial counsel in the defense of high-profile case involving novel Sherman Act conspiracy claims of horizontal market allocation in the labor market. Obtained complete defense verdict on all counts. In Re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Product Liability Litigation (MDL Mass.) Co-lead trial counsel in defense of 12,000+ individual product liability cases, in which the first bellwether trial ended in defense verdict and the vast bulk of cases settled thereafter. U.S. v. Noryian (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel defending Dr. Leyla Nourian against charges related to an alleged healthcare fraud and money-laundering scheme involving compound pharmacies owned and operated by her family members. Just one week before a five-week trial, convinced the government to dismiss all charges against Dr. Nourian by submitting evidence that her signature had been forged on documents allegedly evidencing her involvement. E.T., et al. v. Morath, et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for group of children with disabilities challenging legality of Texas executive order banning mask mandates in public schools. After the district court denied emergency relief, all discovery and motion practice had to be condensed into just seven weeks. The bench trial resulted in the district court permanently enjoining enforcement of the executive order as violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act and preempted by federal law. Flypsi, Inc. d/b/a Flyp v. Google LLC (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Flyp, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flyp’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flyp $12 million for Google’s infringement. U.S. v. Alan Andrew Beauchamp, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Dr. Nick Nicholson, a bariatric surgeon alleged to have participated in a conspiracy with other medical professionals and hospital administrators to receive $40 million in health care bribes and kickbacks. After a seven-week trial with eight co-defendants, Nicholson was the lone defendant acquitted. America’s Auto Auction v. Zoellner, et al. (Oklahoma State Court) Trial counsel for plaintiff, a national auto auction company, in a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference claims, in which the jury found liability on all claims, awarded our client $2 million in actual damages, and found malice, after which the case settled during the punitive damages phase. Badger Midstream Inc. v. Scout Energy LP (Texas State Court) Represented a pipeline owner as lead trial counsel in a contract dispute with a gas processing company, which favorably settled mid-trial. John Doe v. Company, Inc. (Confidential Arbitration) Represented consumer product company in employment dispute with former board chairman, which resolved after favorable arbitration award rejecting all claims and awarding attorney’s fees to company. Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud. SEC v. Mark Cuban (N.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban in a civil insider-trading case that, after a three-week trial, culminated in the jury returning a verdict for Mr. Cuban, clearing him of any wrongdoing. State of Texas Ex Rel. Allen Jones v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for relator in Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act case that settled during trial for $158 million, making it the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas history by nearly a factor of two. Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer. Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly $300 million. Rysher Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc., et al. (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles) Represented company owned by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner in indemnity claim involving profit-sharing dispute with actor Don Johnson over television series “Nash Bridges,” in which the court granted summary judgment on liability in our client’s favor, and the case settled before trial. Martin v. NL Industries, Inc., et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Martin, one of three minority shareholders, in breach of fiduciary duty and stockholder oppression case, in which the jury returned a verdict for $179 million that included in excess of $100 million in punitive damages. Halo Electronics Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., et al. (D. Nev.) Lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface-mount magnetic components used in electronics products, in which a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents’ validity, and awarded past damages. The case ended up in the United States Supreme Court, where the court vindicated Halo’s position on willfulness in patent litigation. YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for defendants in a case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement, which was resolved on favorable terms. Amerisourcebergen Specialty Group, Inc. v. FFF Enterprises, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Defended manufacturer of electronic medicine cabinet in patent infringement case brought by competitor; instituted IPR proceedings that resulted in a finding of invalidity of all asserted claim. Script Security Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., in patent infringement lawsuit that resolved on favorable terms on the eve of trial. U.S. v. William Walters and Thomas Davis (S.D.N.Y.) Represent Chairman of the Board of a public company in securities fraud litigation. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Co-lead trial counsel for Fresenius in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to hemodialysis machines, in which a jury returned a verdict for Fresenius invalidating all asserted claims on all patents at trial (Baxter sought $87 million in damages and an injunction barring Fresenius from selling its “Fresenius 2008K” hemodialysis machine). Oasis Research, LLC v. Adrive LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for EMC in RICO case arising out of allegations of witness bribery and obstruction of justice, which resolved on favorable terms prior to trial. United States ex rel., Fisher, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for the relator in FCA litigation involving a federal program designed to assist homeowners following the 2008–2009 financial crisis, which favorably settled on the eve of trial. Judge Carlos Cortez v. Coyt Randal Johnston (Texas State Court) Represented defendant lawyer in defamation case brought by a sitting judge, which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed and lost bid for re-election. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. v. INEOS Group, Ltd. (Texas State Court) Obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in Texas state court, to prevent use and disclosure of trade secrets involving high-density polyethylene manufacturing technology. Suit arose from defendant’s licensing of confidential polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries, in contravention of licensing agreements. Injunction was affirmed on appeal by the Houston Court of Appeals. The case settled before trial but after the successful appeal. Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Ciba Vision Corporation, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for Rembrandt in a patent infringement case involving extended wear contact lenses. Obtained $41 million jury verdict. Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Deep Nines on patent related to Internet security. Obtained jury verdict of $18 million for patentee; twice the damages sought. Hillwood Investment Properties Ltd. v. Radical Mavericks Management LLC (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for ownership of Dallas Mavericks basketball team in case alleging mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty. Obtained summary dismissal of all claims. Schroeder v. Wildenthal, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for a former Managing Partner of Akin Gump law firm in case alleging claims of conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty related to internationally famous art collection. Obtained dismissal of all claims. In re 9/11 Terrorist Attacks (S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel for Al Rajhi family members in multi-district litigation in largest wrongful death case ever brought in the U.S. Obtained dismissal of all claims. Alcatel-Lucent Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Microsoft in a series of patent cases involving MP3, video compression, and other software technology. Obtained reversal in post-trial motion practice and appeal of what was then the largest patent jury verdict in history. Texas Instruments v. Rajendra Talluri (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments (TI) in an inevitable disclosure/theft of trade secrets case. Obtained injunction for employer to prevent the inevitable disclosure of TI’s valuable trade secrets. EPG, Inc. v. Carreker, Inc. (D.N.J.) Lead trial counsel for Carreker in defense of trade secret case. Case settled after favorable trial verdict of no misappropriation of trade secrets. Alcatel v. Samsung,DC-96-08262 (193rd Dist. Ct., Dallas County, TX) Co-lead trial counsel for the plaintiff, a digital switch manufacturer, in a trade secret misappropriation case involving telecommunication technology in the largest trade secret case ever tried in Texas at the time, where damages sought were in excess of $500 million. The case settled in the middle of trial on confidential terms. Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for Citrix in a patent infringement case. Obtained dismissal of all claims on eve of trial. Carreker Corp. v. Jack Cannon, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for plaintiff Carreker in an inevitable disclosure and misappropriation of trade secrets case involving a former senior principal. Obtained an injunction against employee under inevitable and actual disclosure theories. Texas Instruments v. Gary Johnson (Texas State Court) Lead trial counsel for Texas Instruments in inevitable disclosure of trade secrets case leading to one of the first such injunctions issued by a Texas court. Radman v. Weil Gotshal, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel for plaintiff in legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty case. Obtained multimillion-dollar settlement prior to trial. Universal Image, Inc. v. Cuban, et al. (Texas State Court) Lead counsel in $1 billion contract and fraud case. Obtained dismissal of all claims prior to trial. Taco Bell Corp. v. John R. W. Cracken, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Lead counsel in professional liability case on behalf of prominent attorney. Obtained dismissal of all claims. U.S. v. Lipscomb (N.D. Tex.) Co-lead counsel for defendant in public corruption case against prominent city councilman and civil rights leader. Home confinement obtained after trial; conviction reversed on appeal and case dismissed by government. BancTec USA, Inc. f/k/a Monitronics, Inc. v. Advanced Financial Solutions, Inc., et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Advanced Financial Solutions; won judgment against BancTec in a countersuit for tortious interference with contract. DSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for DSC in trade secrets case against competitor that induced DSC customers to disclose technology in breach of secrecy agreements involving Class IV tandem switch technology. Won $10 million judgment for DSC and developmental injunction and defeated antitrust counterclaims. U.S., ex rel. John D. Battaglia v. Texas Data Control, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Texas Data Control in qui tam case alleging overbillings in violation of the federal FCA. Defense verdict plus $15 million recovery on claim of under payment. U.S. v. Faulkner, et al. (N.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for the government in prosecution of bankers and developers in so-called I-30 condo case, which was largest bank fraud prosecution in Texas history. Obtained conviction of all defendants including RICO forfeiture.","searchable_name":"Thomas M. Melsheimer","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426357,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2817,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-mezzina","email":"pmezzina@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mezzina","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States","years_held":"2013-2014"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","years_held":"2009-2010"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court of the United States","years_held":"2018 - 2019"}],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"Alessio","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulmezzina/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":70}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:47.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:47.000Z","searchable_text":"Mezzina{{ FIELD }}As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.\nPaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\nPaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\nPaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Partner Harvard University Harvard Law School Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Law Clerk, Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States Law Clerk, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Law Clerk, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court of the United States","searchable_name":"Paul Alessio Mezzina","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}