{"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":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","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":"B","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442365,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e","slug":"bruce-baber","email":"bbaber@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-917-749-1247","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":17}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baber","nick_name":"Bruce","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Bruce","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"W.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebaber/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","searchable_text":"Baber{{ FIELD }}Bruce Baber focuses his practice in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.\nBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\nBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\nFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by Chambers USA. He has also been listed in multiple editions of The Best Lawyers in America, The Legal 500, The World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World’s Leading Trademark Professionals, The International Who’s Who of Trademark Lawyers, numerous Super Lawyer lists and other leading industry publications.\nA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\n \nAdmitted only in Georgia. Bruce W Baber Partner Princeton University  Duke University Duke University School of Law Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Best Lawyers In America.","searchable_name":"Bruce W. Baber","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442768,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5372,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"melvin-bailey","email":"mbailey@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bailey","nick_name":"Mel","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Melvin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":1896,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1987-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)"},{"title":"Texas Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in Dallas","detail":"Dallas D Magazine"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2017-2018"},{"title":"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy","detail":"2017"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/mel-bailey-10aa2033/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)"},{"title":"Texas Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in Dallas","detail":"Dallas D Magazine"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2017-2018"},{"title":"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy","detail":"2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6358}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:46.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:46.000Z","searchable_text":"Bailey{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in Dallas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Dallas D Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017-2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Mel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.\nMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation. Partner Super Lawyer Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018) Texas Lawyer Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018) Best Lawyers in Dallas Dallas D Magazine Best Lawyers in America 2017-2018 International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy 2017 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Texas Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers Member, International Association of Defense Counsel Fellow, Litigation of Trial Counsel Member, The Trial Lawyer Honorary Society Former Member, American Board Trial Advocates Member, Diversity Law Institute Member, Trial Law Institute Inactive  Member, American Board of Trial Advocates IADC Trial Academy Faculty, Stanford University","searchable_name":"Melvin D. Bailey (Mel)","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":437134,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-balser","email":"dbalser@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":18}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Balser","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"1987-1989"}],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11778}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Balser{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is top in class action litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"U.S. “Litigation Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Class Actions{{ FIELD }}Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.{{ FIELD }}Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.{{ FIELD }}Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.{{ FIELD }}Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.{{ FIELD }}Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.{{ FIELD }}Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.{{ FIELD }}Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.{{ FIELD }}Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.{{ FIELD }}Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes{{ FIELD }}Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets{{ FIELD }}Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.{{ FIELD }}Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.”{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.{{ FIELD }}David Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients’ most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation. \nRanked by Chambers USA as a “Star Individual” for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\n\n “He is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best.”\n“He has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation.”\n“He can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive.”\n“He is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met.”\n“He's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.”\n\nDavid’s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as Distinguished Leader by the Daily Report in 2022, which praised his “proven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.” He has also been named a “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation and honored as a BTI Client Service All-Star. David’s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges. \nDavid leads the firm’s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\n  David L Balser Partner Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT “His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.”  DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022 \"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\"  Chambers USA 2023 “He is top in class action litigation\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.” CHAMBERS USA 2023 Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection) THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022 “Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation Best Lawyers in America U.S. “Litigation Star”  Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present 2018 BTI Client Service All-Star BTI, 2018 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School Georgia Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Class Actions Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products. Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services. Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit. Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit. Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court. Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality. Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial. Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees. Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company. Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website. Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act. Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment. Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds. Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance. Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island. Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action. Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019. Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project. Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia. Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.” Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment. Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims. Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor. Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.","searchable_name":"David L. Balser","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":447228,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7274,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"william-barnette-2","email":"wbarnette@kslaw.com ","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":18,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Barnette","nick_name":"Will","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana","years_held":"1995 - 1996"}],"first_name":"William","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1136,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13228}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","searchable_text":"Barnette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Class Actions Section\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"General Counsel Pro Bono Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Store Support Excellence Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Law Institute, 2025-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2024-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2019-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.){{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.){{ FIELD }}Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)* {{ FIELD }}Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) * {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)* {{ FIELD }}Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998) {{ FIELD }}Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005) {{ FIELD }}Recovery {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Appeals {{ FIELD }}Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068{{ FIELD }}Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)* {{ FIELD }}Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999) {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)* {{ FIELD }}Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)* {{ FIELD }}Investigations {{ FIELD }}Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act {{ FIELD }}*Representation while in-house counsel {{ FIELD }}Will Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm’s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade, and winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the “v.” In particular, he has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations. \nPrior to rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will served as Associate General Counsel for The Home Depot and was a member of the company’s Legal Senior Leadership Team. As leader of The Home Depot’s commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he was responsible for the company’s most significant commercial and business litigation, which frequently challenged core aspects of the company’s business. During his 21-year tenure with The Home Depot, Will led the successful defense of several hundred class actions, created and led the company’s recovery litigation program, and successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\nA recognized thought leader in complex litigation, Will argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term—one of the few in-house counsel to do so. He received the Atlanta Business Chronicle’s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works, Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction and There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions, ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He frequently lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award in 2025. \nWill chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, which was instrumental in passing Georgia’s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will played varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute. Partner Chairman-Board of Directors Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020 Chairman-Class Actions Section State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present  Chairman-Board of Directors Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25 General Counsel Pro Bono Award The Home Depot, 2020 Store Support Excellence Award The Home Depot, 2024 Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016 Member American Law Institute, 2025-present Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025 Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow 2024-present Litigation Counsel of America Fellow  2019-2023 Sewanee: The University of the South  Loyola University New Orleans Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Supreme Court of the United States Georgia Louisiana Chairman, State Bar of Georgia, Class Actions Section, 2024-present Member, American Law Institute, 2025-present Member, Board of Directors, Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2017-present; Vice-Chairman, 2022-23; Chairman; 2023-25 Member, In-House Counsel Advisory Board, Emory Law Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, 2017-present Member, Lawyers Club of Atlanta, 2002-present Member, State Bar of Georgia, 2000-present Member, Louisiana State Bar Association, 1995-present Member, Executive Committee of Board of Directors of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2013-2021; Secretary (2017); Treasurer (2018); Vice-President (2019); President (2020) Member, Georgia Senate Study Committee on Legal Reform, 2019-2020 Member, American Bar Association House of Delegates, 1998-2002 Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.) Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.) Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*  Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*  Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*  Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*  Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*  Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) *  Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*  Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)  Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*  Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)  Recovery  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*  Appeals  Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*  Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)  Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*  Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*  Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*  Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*  Investigations  Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act  *Representation while in-house counsel ","searchable_name":"William P. Barnette (Will)","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":442789,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5487,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eStephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client\u0026rsquo;s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is \u0026ldquo;[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.\u0026rdquo; In common with his colleagues, \u0026ldquo;he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective\u0026rdquo;; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the \u0026ldquo;[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers \u0026ldquo; by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"stephen-baskin","email":"sbaskin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (\u0026ldquo;TCL\u0026rdquo;). Case favorably settled for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCraig Alexander v. a major international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(GA: DeKalb Country State Court)\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client\u0026rsquo;s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton\u0026rsquo;s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (\u0026ldquo;GM\u0026rdquo;) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSoundView Innovations v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client\u0026rsquo;s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLighthouse Consulting Group, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright\u0026rsquo;s decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM\u0026rsquo;s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParallel Iron v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eand US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInnova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital, LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eStambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baskin","nick_name":"Steve","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Stephen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":345,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"A great client-oriented attorney\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked “Patent 1000”","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"title":"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”","detail":"Washingtonian Magazine"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eStephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client\u0026rsquo;s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is \u0026ldquo;[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.\u0026rdquo; In common with his colleagues, \u0026ldquo;he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective\u0026rdquo;; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the \u0026ldquo;[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers \u0026ldquo; by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (\u0026ldquo;TCL\u0026rdquo;). Case favorably settled for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCraig Alexander v. a major international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(GA: DeKalb Country State Court)\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client\u0026rsquo;s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton\u0026rsquo;s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (\u0026ldquo;GM\u0026rdquo;) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSoundView Innovations v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client\u0026rsquo;s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLighthouse Consulting Group, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright\u0026rsquo;s decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM\u0026rsquo;s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParallel Iron v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eand US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInnova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital, LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eStambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"A great client-oriented attorney\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked “Patent 1000”","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"title":"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”","detail":"Washingtonian Magazine"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6942}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:20.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:20.000Z","searchable_text":"Baskin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"A great client-oriented attorney\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked “Patent 1000”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Asset Management\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washingtonian Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc. (D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.{{ FIELD }}In the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (“TCL”). Case favorably settled for client.{{ FIELD }}Encore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.{{ FIELD }}Craig Alexander v. a major international airline (GA: DeKalb Country State Court). Representing a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client’s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.{{ FIELD }}Hand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al. (D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.{{ FIELD }}Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. (N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.{{ FIELD }}Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton’s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.{{ FIELD }}SunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc (N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.{{ FIELD }}Encore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Symbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline (N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.{{ FIELD }}Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.{{ FIELD }}Amtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al (International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities. Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.{{ FIELD }}SoundView Innovations v. a major international airline (District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client’s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.{{ FIELD }}Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC (WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright’s decision.{{ FIELD }}Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM’s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.{{ FIELD }}EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.{{ FIELD }}Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC (Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.{{ FIELD }}NCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al (Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.{{ FIELD }}Anuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.{{ FIELD }}St. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.{{ FIELD }}Symbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.{{ FIELD }}Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.{{ FIELD }}Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.{{ FIELD }}Parallel Iron v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Aeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways. Lead counsel representing a major international airline and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Walker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics, et al.) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet). Walker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Innova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom). InNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Autoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies. Autoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Cyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).{{ FIELD }}CyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types. Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Garnet Digital LLC Litigation. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC Litigation, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Leon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis). Stambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).{{ FIELD }}MacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Autoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone. Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).{{ FIELD }}A major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).{{ FIELD }}Stephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25 years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.\nSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client’s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality. \nSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is “[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.” In common with his colleagues, “he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective”; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the “[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers “ by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\nSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA. Partner \"A great client-oriented attorney\" Chambers USA \"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\" Chambers USA Ranked “Patent 1000” Intellectual Asset Management Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers” Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present Recognized as a “Best Lawyer” Washingtonian Magazine Ohio University  Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Virginia Chair of Executive Area Board at American Cancer Society Board of Directors at ThanksUSA The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc. (D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data. In the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (“TCL”). Case favorably settled for client. Encore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation. Craig Alexander v. a major international airline (GA: DeKalb Country State Court). Representing a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client’s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool. Hand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al. (D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. (N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton’s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y. SunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc (N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid. Encore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims. Symbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline (N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes. Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices. Amtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al (International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities. Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234. SoundView Innovations v. a major international airline (District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client’s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses. Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC (WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright’s decision. Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM’s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team. EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology. Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC (Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device. NCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al (Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC. Anuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages. St. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction. Symbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes. Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems. Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds. Parallel Iron v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013). Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013). Aeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways. Lead counsel representing a major international airline and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011). Walker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics, et al.) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet). Walker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011). Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013). Innova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom). InNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010). Autoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies. Autoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010). Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011). Cyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011). CyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011). Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types. Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010). Garnet Digital LLC Litigation. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC Litigation, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011). Leon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis). Stambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011). MacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011). Autoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone. Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012). A major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).","searchable_name":"Stephen E. Baskin (Steve)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442360,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":852,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"w-randall-bassett","email":"rbassett@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":5}]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bassett","nick_name":"Randy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"W. Randall","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/wrandallbassett/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":126,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5463}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","searchable_text":"Bassett{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.{{ FIELD }}Randy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.  Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.\nRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: Brown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences, Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and United Parcel Service, Inc.\nRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\nRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding’s office in Miami.  He serves as Managing Partner of the firm’s Miami office. W Randall Bassett Partner Best Lawyers in America 2010–2016 Chambers USA 2010–2015 Legal 500 2010–2016 The Citadel  University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia Hawaii American Bar Association Litigation Counsel of America American Bar Fellow State Bar of Georgia Lawyers Club of Atlanta Defense Research Institute State Bar of Florida Georgia Defense Lawyers Association International Association of Defense Counsel International Society of Barristers Product Liability Advisory Council Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas. Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.","searchable_name":"W. Randall Bassett (Randy)","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":446413,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":826,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"andrew-bayman","email":"abayman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":131}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bayman","nick_name":"Andy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Andrew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2442,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1989-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"T.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":719}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Bayman{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Distinguished Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBER USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing \\\"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named by The Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.{{ FIELD }}Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.{{ FIELD }}Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).{{ FIELD }}Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.{{ FIELD }}Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device.{{ FIELD }}Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.{{ FIELD }}Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan).{{ FIELD }}Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.{{ FIELD }}Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.{{ FIELD }}Andy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability, toxic tort, and other tort cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of “Innovator Liability,” the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck’s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax® and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.\nAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.  He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\nAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.  The American Lawyer recognized Andy as a “Litigator of the Week” for that victory.  In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy’s client’s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.  He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.  Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association’s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled “Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.”\nHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants’ counsel, that the plaintiffs’ general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.  At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.  After excluding the plaintiffs’ experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win. \nAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by Law360 and in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\nIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm’s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.  He served for five years as the Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding’s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally. Andrew T Bayman Partner Named Distinguished Leader DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024 Named Litigator of the Week THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024 “Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor” CHAMBERS USA Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star. Benchmark, 2019 Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP Law360 Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year” Best Lawyers, 2015 Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide) Chambers USA Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.”  CHAMBER USA Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\"  CHAMBERS USA “Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.” Chambers USA Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022 Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer” Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022 Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise”  Legal 500 An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.”  Legal 500 Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers Litigation Counsel of America, 2014 Named by The Best Lawyers in America 2006–2022 Miami University-Oxford  Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Federal Bar Association Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions. Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru. Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault. Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business. Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018. Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019). Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations. Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation. Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors. Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device. Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama. Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client. Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged. Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan). Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens. Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.","searchable_name":"Andrew T. Bayman (Andy)","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":445014,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3436,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLohr's practice focuses on high-stakes business disputes with an emphasis on antitrust matters and consumer protection matters. Lohr\u0026nbsp;represents clients in relation to high exposure civil litigation, including class actions, multi-district litigation, and matters with complex e-discovery issues. Lohr also represents clients in relation to government investigations and counsels clients regarding antitrust and consumer protection issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeadership and\u0026nbsp;Community Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCenter for Puppetry Arts, Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeorgia Lawyers for the Arts,\u0026nbsp;Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAtlanta Women's Foundation, Inspire Atlanta Leadership Program Class of 2019\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lohr-beck","email":"lohr.beck@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovo Nordisk Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of \u003cstrong\u003eECI Management, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSix Continents Hotels, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers\u0026rsquo; costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKemira Chemicals Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKan Am (US)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3205}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Beck","nick_name":"Lohr","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Lohr","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":659,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with honors, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2014-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Lohr Beck is a partner at King \u0026 Spalding. Read more about her.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLohr's practice focuses on high-stakes business disputes with an emphasis on antitrust matters and consumer protection matters. Lohr\u0026nbsp;represents clients in relation to high exposure civil litigation, including class actions, multi-district litigation, and matters with complex e-discovery issues. Lohr also represents clients in relation to government investigations and counsels clients regarding antitrust and consumer protection issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeadership and\u0026nbsp;Community Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCenter for Puppetry Arts, Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeorgia Lawyers for the Arts,\u0026nbsp;Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAtlanta Women's Foundation, Inspire Atlanta Leadership Program Class of 2019\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovo Nordisk Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of \u003cstrong\u003eECI Management, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSix Continents Hotels, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers\u0026rsquo; costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKemira Chemicals Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKan Am (US)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11787}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-13T21:27:06.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-13T21:27:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Beck{{ FIELD }}Defense of Novo Nordisk Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts.{{ FIELD }}Defense of ECI Management, LLC in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software.{{ FIELD }}Defense of Six Continents Hotels, Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers’ costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.{{ FIELD }}Defense of Kemira Chemicals Inc. in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate.{{ FIELD }}Defense of Kan Am (US) in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.{{ FIELD }}Lohr's practice focuses on high-stakes business disputes with an emphasis on antitrust matters and consumer protection matters. Lohr represents clients in relation to high exposure civil litigation, including class actions, multi-district litigation, and matters with complex e-discovery issues. Lohr also represents clients in relation to government investigations and counsels clients regarding antitrust and consumer protection issues. \nLeadership and Community Service\nCenter for Puppetry Arts, Board member\nGeorgia Lawyers for the Arts, Board member\nAtlanta Women's Foundation, Inspire Atlanta Leadership Program Class of 2019 Lohr Beck lawyer Partner George Washington University George Washington University Law School Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia Defense of Novo Nordisk Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts. Defense of ECI Management, LLC in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software. Defense of Six Continents Hotels, Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers’ costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. Defense of Kemira Chemicals Inc. in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate. Defense of Kan Am (US) in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.","searchable_name":"Lohr A. Beck","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":447593,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3488,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJessica Beess und Chrostin is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes Group.\u0026nbsp; Jessica\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on complex international dispute resolution, with particular expertise in high-stakes commercial, investor-state, construction, and global award enforcement disputes.\u0026nbsp; Jessica regularly represents clients in international disputes in the infrastructure, oil and gas, mining, construction, and renewable energy sectors, and has significant experience in consumer goods, real estate, and telecommunications disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica is a zealous advocate for her clients and strives tirelessly to ensure they receive the best legal representation. She understands that representing her clients\u0026rsquo; interests requires understanding their business and objectives, and tailoring the strategy to achieve the best possible outcome, whether inside or out of the hearing room. Jessica represents clients in arbitrations before all major arbitral forums, including the AAA, ICC, ICDR, ICSID, JAMS, LCIA, and SCC as well as ad hoc arbitrations, such as UNCITRAL. She is experienced in all phases of international arbitration and award enforcement, and handles disputes from inception to collection. Jessica also regularly represents clients global award recognition and enforcement efforts as coordinating counsel and in litigations before U.S. courts under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica represents clients in jurisdictions across the world. Her matters include representing a wind farm owner in a construction arbitration dispute with a turbine supplier and operations \u0026amp; maintenance provider (concerning the latter\u0026rsquo;s failure to comply with O\u0026amp;M obligations and failure to remediate certain serial defects); representing a client in a multi-hundred million dollar commercial dispute with Oman over a project in the extractive industries (concerning certain licenses and failure to use best efforts to support the project); representing Chevron Corporation (U.S.A.) and Texaco Petroleum Company (U.S.A.) in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (concerning the scope of environmental release agreements and due process violations by a court of Ecuador that issued a multi-billion dollar fraudulent judgment against Chevron); and representing a sovereign state in a global campaign to enforce an ICC arbitration award against another sovereign.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica is a frequent writer and speaker on topics relating to international arbitration and has been recognized by IFLR Americas as a Rising Star in Commercial Arbitration and by CPR as a Rising Star in Alternative Dispute Resolution. In 2023, she was awarded the prestigious Smit-Lowenfeld Prize, which recognizes annually an outstanding article published in the previous year on any aspect of international arbitration, for her article on \u0026ldquo;The Illegality Objection in Investor-State Arbitration\u0026rdquo; (co-authored with Caline Mouawad, published in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArbitration International\u003c/em\u003e, Volume 37, Issue 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica is fluent in English and German, and proficient in French and Spanish. She received her J.D.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;from Harvard Law School and her B.A.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;from Columbia University. She has conducted legal studies at Cambridge University.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jessica-beess-und-chrostin","email":"jbeessundchrostin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting sovereign award creditor in global enforcement proceedings against another sovereign relating to a multibillion-dollar ICC award\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting numerous investors in disputes against Spain and Italy under the Energy Charter Treaty regarding changes to the regulatory regime applicable to certain renewable energy producers in the wind and solar sectors (renewable energy)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Dutch investor in UNCITRAL arbitration against the Government of Vietnam under the Netherlands-Vietnam Bilateral Investment Treaty (real estate and human rights; obtained favorable award, including largest moral damages award in favor of an individual in investment arbitration)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bear Creek Mining Corporation in an ICSID Arbitration against the Republic of Peru under the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement (mining sector; obtained favorable award of damages)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Chevron Corporation (U.S.A.) and Texaco Petroleum Company (U.S.A.) in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (concerning scope of environmental release agreements and due process violations by a court of Ecuador that had issued a multi-billion dollar judgment against Chevron; obtained favorable award declaring,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;inter alia\u003c/em\u003e, that the Ecuadorian judgment was the product of fraud)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented KBR, Inc. in a NAFTA arbitration against the United Mexican States (concerning Mexican court\u0026rsquo;s annulment of a commercial arbitral award and related US enforcement proceedings)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Reficar in an ICC arbitration against Chicago Bridge \u0026amp; Iron (construction sector; obtained favorable multibillion-dollar award)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Russian Federation (construction and real estate sectors)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented international producer of household goods in an UNCITRAL arbitration against Latin American country under bilateral investment treaty (consumer goods; obtained favorable award)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major telecommunications company in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;arbitration against another telecommunications company regarding fraudulently originated telephone traffic and resulting disputed charges under global hubbing agreement (telecommunications sector; obtained favorable award)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Indian pharmaceuticals manufacturer in contract dispute against U.S. pharmaceutical company (pharmaceuticals sector; successfully settled claims)\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":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":40,"guid":"40.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Beess und Chrostin","nick_name":"Jessica","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jessica","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2013-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ones to Watch - New York","detail":"Best Lawyers in America 2025"},{"title":"Future Leaders","detail":"Who's Who Legal (WWL): Arbitration 2024"},{"title":"Rising ADR Stars 2023","detail":"International Institute for Conflict Prevention \u0026 Resolution"},{"title":"Rising Star Awards Americas, Commercial Arbitration","detail":"IFLR, 2020 and 2021"},{"title":"Smit-Lowenfeld Prize for the Best Article in the Field of International Arbitration Published in 2021","detail":"The International Arbitration Club of New York"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJessica Beess und Chrostin is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes Group.\u0026nbsp; Jessica\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on complex international dispute resolution, with particular expertise in high-stakes commercial, investor-state, construction, and global award enforcement disputes.\u0026nbsp; Jessica regularly represents clients in international disputes in the infrastructure, oil and gas, mining, construction, and renewable energy sectors, and has significant experience in consumer goods, real estate, and telecommunications disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica is a zealous advocate for her clients and strives tirelessly to ensure they receive the best legal representation. She understands that representing her clients\u0026rsquo; interests requires understanding their business and objectives, and tailoring the strategy to achieve the best possible outcome, whether inside or out of the hearing room. Jessica represents clients in arbitrations before all major arbitral forums, including the AAA, ICC, ICDR, ICSID, JAMS, LCIA, and SCC as well as ad hoc arbitrations, such as UNCITRAL. She is experienced in all phases of international arbitration and award enforcement, and handles disputes from inception to collection. Jessica also regularly represents clients global award recognition and enforcement efforts as coordinating counsel and in litigations before U.S. courts under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica represents clients in jurisdictions across the world. Her matters include representing a wind farm owner in a construction arbitration dispute with a turbine supplier and operations \u0026amp; maintenance provider (concerning the latter\u0026rsquo;s failure to comply with O\u0026amp;M obligations and failure to remediate certain serial defects); representing a client in a multi-hundred million dollar commercial dispute with Oman over a project in the extractive industries (concerning certain licenses and failure to use best efforts to support the project); representing Chevron Corporation (U.S.A.) and Texaco Petroleum Company (U.S.A.) in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (concerning the scope of environmental release agreements and due process violations by a court of Ecuador that issued a multi-billion dollar fraudulent judgment against Chevron); and representing a sovereign state in a global campaign to enforce an ICC arbitration award against another sovereign.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica is a frequent writer and speaker on topics relating to international arbitration and has been recognized by IFLR Americas as a Rising Star in Commercial Arbitration and by CPR as a Rising Star in Alternative Dispute Resolution. In 2023, she was awarded the prestigious Smit-Lowenfeld Prize, which recognizes annually an outstanding article published in the previous year on any aspect of international arbitration, for her article on \u0026ldquo;The Illegality Objection in Investor-State Arbitration\u0026rdquo; (co-authored with Caline Mouawad, published in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArbitration International\u003c/em\u003e, Volume 37, Issue 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica is fluent in English and German, and proficient in French and Spanish. She received her J.D.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;from Harvard Law School and her B.A.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;from Columbia University. She has conducted legal studies at Cambridge University.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting sovereign award creditor in global enforcement proceedings against another sovereign relating to a multibillion-dollar ICC award\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting numerous investors in disputes against Spain and Italy under the Energy Charter Treaty regarding changes to the regulatory regime applicable to certain renewable energy producers in the wind and solar sectors (renewable energy)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Dutch investor in UNCITRAL arbitration against the Government of Vietnam under the Netherlands-Vietnam Bilateral Investment Treaty (real estate and human rights; obtained favorable award, including largest moral damages award in favor of an individual in investment arbitration)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bear Creek Mining Corporation in an ICSID Arbitration against the Republic of Peru under the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement (mining sector; obtained favorable award of damages)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Chevron Corporation (U.S.A.) and Texaco Petroleum Company (U.S.A.) in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (concerning scope of environmental release agreements and due process violations by a court of Ecuador that had issued a multi-billion dollar judgment against Chevron; obtained favorable award declaring,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;inter alia\u003c/em\u003e, that the Ecuadorian judgment was the product of fraud)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented KBR, Inc. in a NAFTA arbitration against the United Mexican States (concerning Mexican court\u0026rsquo;s annulment of a commercial arbitral award and related US enforcement proceedings)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Reficar in an ICC arbitration against Chicago Bridge \u0026amp; Iron (construction sector; obtained favorable multibillion-dollar award)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Russian Federation (construction and real estate sectors)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented international producer of household goods in an UNCITRAL arbitration against Latin American country under bilateral investment treaty (consumer goods; obtained favorable award)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major telecommunications company in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;arbitration against another telecommunications company regarding fraudulently originated telephone traffic and resulting disputed charges under global hubbing agreement (telecommunications sector; obtained favorable award)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Indian pharmaceuticals manufacturer in contract dispute against U.S. pharmaceutical company (pharmaceuticals sector; successfully settled claims)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ones to Watch - New York","detail":"Best Lawyers in America 2025"},{"title":"Future Leaders","detail":"Who's Who Legal (WWL): Arbitration 2024"},{"title":"Rising ADR Stars 2023","detail":"International Institute for Conflict Prevention \u0026 Resolution"},{"title":"Rising Star Awards Americas, Commercial Arbitration","detail":"IFLR, 2020 and 2021"},{"title":"Smit-Lowenfeld Prize for the Best Article in the Field of International Arbitration Published in 2021","detail":"The International Arbitration Club of New York"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10178}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-17T15:37:21.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T15:37:21.000Z","searchable_text":"Beess und Chrostin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ones to Watch - New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Leaders\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal (WWL): Arbitration 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising ADR Stars 2023\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"International Institute for Conflict Prevention \u0026amp; Resolution\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star Awards Americas, Commercial Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IFLR, 2020 and 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Smit-Lowenfeld Prize for the Best Article in the Field of International Arbitration Published in 2021\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The International Arbitration Club of New York\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing sovereign award creditor in global enforcement proceedings against another sovereign relating to a multibillion-dollar ICC award{{ FIELD }}Representing numerous investors in disputes against Spain and Italy under the Energy Charter Treaty regarding changes to the regulatory regime applicable to certain renewable energy producers in the wind and solar sectors (renewable energy){{ FIELD }}Represented Dutch investor in UNCITRAL arbitration against the Government of Vietnam under the Netherlands-Vietnam Bilateral Investment Treaty (real estate and human rights; obtained favorable award, including largest moral damages award in favor of an individual in investment arbitration){{ FIELD }}Represented Bear Creek Mining Corporation in an ICSID Arbitration against the Republic of Peru under the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement (mining sector; obtained favorable award of damages){{ FIELD }}Representing Chevron Corporation (U.S.A.) and Texaco Petroleum Company (U.S.A.) in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (concerning scope of environmental release agreements and due process violations by a court of Ecuador that had issued a multi-billion dollar judgment against Chevron; obtained favorable award declaring, inter alia, that the Ecuadorian judgment was the product of fraud){{ FIELD }}Represented KBR, Inc. in a NAFTA arbitration against the United Mexican States (concerning Mexican court’s annulment of a commercial arbitral award and related US enforcement proceedings){{ FIELD }}Represented Reficar in an ICC arbitration against Chicago Bridge \u0026amp; Iron (construction sector; obtained favorable multibillion-dollar award){{ FIELD }}Represented Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Russian Federation (construction and real estate sectors){{ FIELD }}Represented international producer of household goods in an UNCITRAL arbitration against Latin American country under bilateral investment treaty (consumer goods; obtained favorable award){{ FIELD }}Represented major telecommunications company in ad hoc arbitration against another telecommunications company regarding fraudulently originated telephone traffic and resulting disputed charges under global hubbing agreement (telecommunications sector; obtained favorable award){{ FIELD }}Represented Indian pharmaceuticals manufacturer in contract dispute against U.S. pharmaceutical company (pharmaceuticals sector; successfully settled claims){{ FIELD }}Jessica Beess und Chrostin is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Trial and Global Disputes Group.  Jessica’s practice focuses on complex international dispute resolution, with particular expertise in high-stakes commercial, investor-state, construction, and global award enforcement disputes.  Jessica regularly represents clients in international disputes in the infrastructure, oil and gas, mining, construction, and renewable energy sectors, and has significant experience in consumer goods, real estate, and telecommunications disputes.\nJessica is a zealous advocate for her clients and strives tirelessly to ensure they receive the best legal representation. She understands that representing her clients’ interests requires understanding their business and objectives, and tailoring the strategy to achieve the best possible outcome, whether inside or out of the hearing room. Jessica represents clients in arbitrations before all major arbitral forums, including the AAA, ICC, ICDR, ICSID, JAMS, LCIA, and SCC as well as ad hoc arbitrations, such as UNCITRAL. She is experienced in all phases of international arbitration and award enforcement, and handles disputes from inception to collection. Jessica also regularly represents clients global award recognition and enforcement efforts as coordinating counsel and in litigations before U.S. courts under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act.\nJessica represents clients in jurisdictions across the world. Her matters include representing a wind farm owner in a construction arbitration dispute with a turbine supplier and operations \u0026amp; maintenance provider (concerning the latter’s failure to comply with O\u0026amp;M obligations and failure to remediate certain serial defects); representing a client in a multi-hundred million dollar commercial dispute with Oman over a project in the extractive industries (concerning certain licenses and failure to use best efforts to support the project); representing Chevron Corporation (U.S.A.) and Texaco Petroleum Company (U.S.A.) in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (concerning the scope of environmental release agreements and due process violations by a court of Ecuador that issued a multi-billion dollar fraudulent judgment against Chevron); and representing a sovereign state in a global campaign to enforce an ICC arbitration award against another sovereign.\nJessica is a frequent writer and speaker on topics relating to international arbitration and has been recognized by IFLR Americas as a Rising Star in Commercial Arbitration and by CPR as a Rising Star in Alternative Dispute Resolution. In 2023, she was awarded the prestigious Smit-Lowenfeld Prize, which recognizes annually an outstanding article published in the previous year on any aspect of international arbitration, for her article on “The Illegality Objection in Investor-State Arbitration” (co-authored with Caline Mouawad, published in Arbitration International, Volume 37, Issue 1).\nJessica is fluent in English and German, and proficient in French and Spanish. She received her J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School and her B.A. cum laude from Columbia University. She has conducted legal studies at Cambridge University. Partner Ones to Watch - New York Best Lawyers in America 2025 Future Leaders Who's Who Legal (WWL): Arbitration 2024 Rising ADR Stars 2023 International Institute for Conflict Prevention \u0026amp; Resolution Rising Star Awards Americas, Commercial Arbitration IFLR, 2020 and 2021 Smit-Lowenfeld Prize for the Best Article in the Field of International Arbitration Published in 2021 The International Arbitration Club of New York Columbia University Columbia University School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School University of Cambridge, UK  New York City Bar of New York, International Law Committee Representing sovereign award creditor in global enforcement proceedings against another sovereign relating to a multibillion-dollar ICC award Representing numerous investors in disputes against Spain and Italy under the Energy Charter Treaty regarding changes to the regulatory regime applicable to certain renewable energy producers in the wind and solar sectors (renewable energy) Represented Dutch investor in UNCITRAL arbitration against the Government of Vietnam under the Netherlands-Vietnam Bilateral Investment Treaty (real estate and human rights; obtained favorable award, including largest moral damages award in favor of an individual in investment arbitration) Represented Bear Creek Mining Corporation in an ICSID Arbitration against the Republic of Peru under the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement (mining sector; obtained favorable award of damages) Representing Chevron Corporation (U.S.A.) and Texaco Petroleum Company (U.S.A.) in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (concerning scope of environmental release agreements and due process violations by a court of Ecuador that had issued a multi-billion dollar judgment against Chevron; obtained favorable award declaring, inter alia, that the Ecuadorian judgment was the product of fraud) Represented KBR, Inc. in a NAFTA arbitration against the United Mexican States (concerning Mexican court’s annulment of a commercial arbitral award and related US enforcement proceedings) Represented Reficar in an ICC arbitration against Chicago Bridge \u0026amp; Iron (construction sector; obtained favorable multibillion-dollar award) Represented Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Russian Federation (construction and real estate sectors) Represented international producer of household goods in an UNCITRAL arbitration against Latin American country under bilateral investment treaty (consumer goods; obtained favorable award) Represented major telecommunications company in ad hoc arbitration against another telecommunications company regarding fraudulently originated telephone traffic and resulting disputed charges under global hubbing agreement (telecommunications sector; obtained favorable award) Represented Indian pharmaceuticals manufacturer in contract dispute against U.S. pharmaceutical company (pharmaceuticals sector; successfully settled claims)","searchable_name":"Jessica Beess und Chrostin","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426402,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3251,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou, Head of the Paris Litigation Department, is specialized in Dispute Resolution in all its forms: in international arbitration, litigation before Civil, Commercial and Criminal Courts or in the context of settlements or mediation. She is also qualified to act as arbitrator and mediator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHer litigation practice includes commercial and business law, corporate law, unfair and parasitic competition, advertising and\u0026nbsp;entertainment, intellectual property, commercial leases and contracts, construction and product liability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe also has extensive experience in distribution agreements, especially in franchise.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou is highly ranked by Leaders League - Decideurs every year.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is fluent in English, French and Hebrew and conversant in Spanish.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"vanessa-benichou","email":"vbenichou@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFrench Government\u003c/strong\u003e before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Cl\u0026eacute;menceau in India.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, \u0026ldquo;Les Choristes,\u0026rdquo; and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of \u0026euro;550 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of Canada-based \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCaisse de D\u0026eacute;p\u0026ocirc;t et Placement du Qu\u0026eacute;bec\u003c/strong\u003e, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLebanese company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of an \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003einternational grain trading company\u003c/strong\u003e, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":6}]},"expertise":[{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Benichou","nick_name":"Vanessa","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Vanessa","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou, Head of the Paris Litigation Department, is specialized in Dispute Resolution in all its forms: in international arbitration, litigation before Civil, Commercial and Criminal Courts or in the context of settlements or mediation. She is also qualified to act as arbitrator and mediator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHer litigation practice includes commercial and business law, corporate law, unfair and parasitic competition, advertising and\u0026nbsp;entertainment, intellectual property, commercial leases and contracts, construction and product liability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe also has extensive experience in distribution agreements, especially in franchise.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVanessa Benichou is highly ranked by Leaders League - Decideurs every year.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe is fluent in English, French and Hebrew and conversant in Spanish.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFrench Government\u003c/strong\u003e before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Cl\u0026eacute;menceau in India.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, \u0026ldquo;Les Choristes,\u0026rdquo; and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLa Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Jeux (the French State Lottery company),\u003c/strong\u003e before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of \u0026euro;550 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of Canada-based \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCaisse de D\u0026eacute;p\u0026ocirc;t et Placement du Qu\u0026eacute;bec\u003c/strong\u003e, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eLebanese company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of the French leading hairdresser network company, \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eProvalliance,\u003c/strong\u003e in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of an \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003einternational grain trading company\u003c/strong\u003e, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12236}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:28.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:28.000Z","searchable_text":"Benichou{{ FIELD }}Representation of the French Government before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Clémenceau in India.{{ FIELD }}Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, “Les Choristes,” and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading.{{ FIELD }}Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of €550 million.{{ FIELD }}Representation of Canada-based Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company.{{ FIELD }}Representation of a Lebanese company in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture.{{ FIELD }}Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement.{{ FIELD }}Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business.{{ FIELD }}Representation of an international grain trading company, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.{{ FIELD }}Vanessa Benichou, Head of the Paris Litigation Department, is specialized in Dispute Resolution in all its forms: in international arbitration, litigation before Civil, Commercial and Criminal Courts or in the context of settlements or mediation. She is also qualified to act as arbitrator and mediator. \nHer litigation practice includes commercial and business law, corporate law, unfair and parasitic competition, advertising and entertainment, intellectual property, commercial leases and contracts, construction and product liability. \nShe also has extensive experience in distribution agreements, especially in franchise. \nVanessa Benichou is highly ranked by Leaders League - Decideurs every year. \nShe is fluent in English, French and Hebrew and conversant in Spanish.  Vanessa R Benichou Partner Representation of the French Government before French courts and before the Indian Supreme Court in connection with the dismantling of the military aircraft carrier Clémenceau in India. Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Criminal Court of Paris in a case brought pursuant to a complaint by the producers of the hit French movie, “Les Choristes,” and the cinema industry, for conspiracy of piracy and trademark infringement because its advertising was available on peer-to-peer websites where the movie was offered for illegal downloading. Representation of La Française des Jeux (the French State Lottery company), before the Paris Commercial Court in a case brought by a majority of its network's members alleging a wrongful termination of their distribution contracts and asking for damages in an amount of €550 million. Representation of Canada-based Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, in a lawsuit involving claims of wrongful termination of credit related to bankruptcy of a France-based company. Representation of a Lebanese company in an ICC Arbitration against the French company Sodexho International, regarding a wrongful termination of a joint venture. Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation regarding wrongful termination of distribution contracts and trademark infringement. Representation of the French leading hairdresser network company, Provalliance, in a litigation brought by its main competitor for unfair business. Representation of an international grain trading company, in a couple of arbitration proceedings before the International Arbitration Chamber of Paris, regarding the application and the interpretation of the provisions of an international trading contract.","searchable_name":"Vanessa Benichou","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426841,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5738,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"craig-bessenger","email":"cbessenger@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emovie studio, directors, and producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor movie studio\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor media company\u003c/strong\u003e, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclosely held corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented publicly-traded\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous class actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign national\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproducer of high-quality automotive images\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.\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":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bessenger","nick_name":"Craig","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Craig","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2006-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"H.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emovie studio, directors, and producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor movie studio\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor media company\u003c/strong\u003e, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclosely held corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented publicly-traded\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous class actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign national\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproducer of high-quality automotive images\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8096}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:19.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Bessenger{{ FIELD }}Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the movie studio, directors, and producer involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a major movie studio against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Defeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a major media company, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a closely held corporation.{{ FIELD }}Represented publicly-traded healthcare company in numerous class actions.{{ FIELD }}Represented a foreign national in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.{{ FIELD }}Represented bank directors in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.{{ FIELD }}Represented a medical device manufacturer in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.{{ FIELD }}Represented a producer of high-quality automotive images in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Craig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations. Partner Brown University  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California District of Columbia Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the movie studio, directors, and producer involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case. Successfully defended a major movie studio against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal. Defeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a major media company, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal. Achieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a closely held corporation. Represented publicly-traded healthcare company in numerous class actions. Represented a foreign national in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations. Represented bank directors in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities. Represented a medical device manufacturer in an investigation by state regulatory authorities. Represented a producer of high-quality automotive images in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.","searchable_name":"Craig H. Bessenger","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":436688,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3236,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-bessette","email":"pbessette@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-512-940-6250","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":132}]},"expertise":[{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bessette","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4186}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Bessette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\\\" \\\"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Best Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\\\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010\"}{{ FIELD }}Significant Matters{{ FIELD }}Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.{{ FIELD }}SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.{{ FIELD }}Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.{{ FIELD }}Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply{{ FIELD }}In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.{{ FIELD }}Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.{{ FIELD }}Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.{{ FIELD }}FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).{{ FIELD }}In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).{{ FIELD }}Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).{{ FIELD }}In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.{{ FIELD }}Paul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm’s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.  For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation.  He regularly works with board committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues. \nPaul is ranked by Chambers, Best Lawyers in America, and Legal 500, among others, and has been recognized by Super Lawyers and Lawdragon.  He is rated AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbel.  Client and peer reviews in Chambers say Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.  Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he ‘is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”’  “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.”\nPaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including ABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter and The Securities Reporter. Paul R. Bessette Partner Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America Litigation Counsel of America, 2024 Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America Leading Lawyers of America, 2024 \"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\" Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024 Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide \"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\" Chambers USA 2023, Band 1 Recognized by Best Lawyer The Best Lawyers in America - 2023 \"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\" Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023 \"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\" Chambers, 2021 Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions. Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2 Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions. Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2 \"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\" Chambers USA 2018, Band 2 Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors” Chambers USA, 2016 Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.” U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015 Recognized for Securities Litigation  The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025 One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\" Lawdragon, 2008 One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\" Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011 Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers  Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019 Recognized for Securities Litigation Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Baylor University Baylor University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California New York Texas Significant Matters Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024. SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement. Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim. Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss. Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session. Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well. FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019). In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019). Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017). In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015). Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013). Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005). In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.","searchable_name":"Paul R. Bessette","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}]}}