{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"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":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"},{"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 Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"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":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Chair","value":"Chair"}],"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":2839},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Atlanta's John Marshall Law School","value":2830},{"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":"Bond University","value":2841},{"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 Law School","value":3237},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Bucerius Law School, Germany","value":2898},{"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":"Chicago-Kent College of Law","value":3050},{"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":"College of Law, Guildford, UK","value":2646},{"name":"College of Law, London, UK","value":2647},{"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":"Delhi University","value":3099},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"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":"Durham University","value":2708},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University","value":2936},{"name":"ELTE University Budapest","value":2969},{"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":3039},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"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 School of Law","value":2259},{"name":"Free University Berlin","value":2903},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"Fudan University","value":2986},{"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":"Guildhall University, London","value":2863},{"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":"Inns of Court School of Law, UK","value":2649},{"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":"Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany","value":2653},{"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":"King Saud University College of Law \u0026 Political Sciences","value":2823},{"name":"King's College London","value":2987},{"name":"King's College, University of London, UK","value":2654},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Leiden University","value":2926},{"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":"Liverpool University, UK","value":2657},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"London School of Economics and Political Science, UK","value":2658},{"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":"Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich","value":3105},{"name":"Lund University","value":3084},{"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":"Monash University, Australia","value":2660},{"name":"Monash University, Australia","value":3047},{"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":"New York University School of Law","value":2715},{"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":"Oxford University, UK","value":2669},{"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":"Queen's University Faculty of Law","value":2801},{"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":2725},{"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":"Sciences Po Paris","value":2925},{"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 Manchester","value":2845},{"name":"The University of Melbourne","value":2836},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2752},{"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":3168},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá Colombia","value":2677},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Iberoamericana","value":2915},{"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":"Université Catholique de Louvain, Licencie en Droit","value":3213},{"name":"Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium","value":2679},{"name":"Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne","value":2680},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University College London, UK","value":2760},{"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 Augsburg","value":2779},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of Bonn, Germany","value":2682},{"name":"University of Bristol, UK","value":2761},{"name":"University of Buenos Aires, Argentina","value":2683},{"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 Cambridge, UK","value":2684},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Cape Town, South Africa","value":2854},{"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 Cologne, Germany","value":2885},{"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 Deusto, Spain","value":2685},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of East London","value":2963},{"name":"University of Exeter, UK","value":2770},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3112},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Hamburg, Germany","value":2688},{"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 at Chicago School of Law","value":2202},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kent at Canterbury, UK","value":2690},{"name":"University of Kent","value":2849},{"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 Law","value":2954},{"name":"University of Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Lima","value":2859},{"name":"University of London","value":2692},{"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 Maryland School of Law","value":2739},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":3064},{"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 New South Wales","value":2871},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Nottingham, England","value":2881},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Otago, New Zealand","value":2694},{"name":"University of Paris II, Pantheon-Assas, France","value":2695},{"name":"University of Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne","value":3190},{"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 Sheffield","value":2805},{"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 Sydney, Australia","value":2700},{"name":"University of Tasmania","value":2835},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Tokyo","value":3153},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Turku","value":3083},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Vienna School of Law","value":2701},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Warwick, UK","value":2771},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Western Australia","value":2949},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2755},{"name":"University of Wollongong, Australia","value":2873},{"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":"University Toulouse Capitol","value":3109},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":"Immobilier","value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"cg-3","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"F","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":445137,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7292,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Fakler advises and helps favorably resolve cases for companies in the streaming, broadcasting, media, software, and other industries to advance their business objectives. Paul offers clients representation guided by a rich understanding of the intersection between music (and other content), technology, and business. He frequently speaks and publishes on legal developments in these fields and has over twenty-five years of experience litigating seminal cases involving the application of copyright and related law to digital media.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough he helps clients with issues across many types of content, Paul has particularly deep experience resolving copyright issues relating to music, where clients operating at the cutting edge of technology require equally innovative legal representation. Paul offers creative solutions based on his deep understanding of copyright law and technology through counseling, government relations, and \u0026ndash; when necessary \u0026ndash; litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs an experienced copyright lawyer, former software developer and amateur musician, he is also proficient in software copyright litigation and has been advising clients regarding copyright issues related to machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies for over a decade. He is one of the few lawyers in the country with extensive first-chair experience before the Copyright Royalty Board and other royalty rate setting venues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience spans many issues, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright issues implicated by the training and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDigital media and other technologies\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMusic licensing and copyright royalty rate litigation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoyalty audits and payment disputes\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright infringement disputes\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFair use and other defenses\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe DMCA and its safe harbor for online service providers\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright policy matters\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGovernment affairs\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation \u0026amp; Licensing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has litigated numerous high-profile copyright cases involving digital media, copyright, and the Internet. He routinely represents digital music services, as well as other media, software, and consumer products companies, in negotiations and disputes with record labels, music publishers, and other rights holders. His clients in these groundbreaking cases have included MP3.com, Yahoo!, Veoh, MediaNet, Sirius XM Radio, Pandora Media, Bill Graham Archives, ExpressVPN, Private Internet Access, and Music Choice. Paul obtained the only two royalty rate reductions ever granted by the Copyright Royalty Board (or its predecessors) and often makes new law on issues such as the DMCA safe harbor and fair use through representing clients in bet-the-company copyright infringement litigation across many industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCounseling\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients seek Paul\u0026rsquo;s counsel in copyright, trademark, right of publicity, entertainment, computer, and Internet law issues in diverse industries, including the music, motion picture, publishing, software development, data security, and digital media industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGovernment Relations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also advises on strategies for shaping copyright policy and represents clients\u0026rsquo; interest before government entities that impact the copyright ecosystem, such as Congress, the Copyright Office, and the Department of Justice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients served by Paul have included Sirius XM, Pandora, Music Choice, the Orchestra Music Licensing Association, Google, the Television Music Licensing Committee, MediaNet, MP3.com, LaunchCast, Veoh Networks, and Express VPN.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-fakler","email":"pfakler@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003ePandora Media in group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora\u0026rsquo;s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license rights to the underlying jokes in addition to their existing licenses to stream the sound recordings. Paul served as head of a large, multidisciplinary team not only for Pandora\u0026rsquo;s defense of these actions, but also in counterclaims against the plaintiffs and Word Collections for violation of various antitrust laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMusic Choice, the world\u0026rsquo;s first digital music service, in litigation brought by SoundExchange, alleging underpayment of statutory license royalties for Music Choice\u0026rsquo;s commercial background music service.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral technology companies, from startups to a Fortune 500 semiconductor and software company, advising on the copyright issues raised by the training, commercialization, and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe Television Music Licensing Committee in connection with negotiations and potential rate court litigation against various Performing Rights Organizations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBill Graham Archives, operator of the Wolfgang\u0026rsquo;s and Concert Vault music services, in class action copyright infringement litigation arising from allegations that the company failed to secure mechanical and synchronization licenses for on-demand streaming of its collection of live concert audio and video recordings on its websites.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDigital music service MediaNet in litigations brought by various songwriters and music publishers relating to mechanical license requirements, leading to favorable settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMP3.com digital music service in various copyright infringement lawsuits brought by record labels and music publishers relating to music streaming service, including litigation of whether musical sound recordings are works made for hire under the Copyright Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eYahoo! in a copyright case brought by the recording industry, determining the eligibility of Yahoo!\u0026rsquo;s LaunchCast webcasting service for a statutory copyright license.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSymphonic rock band Trans-Siberian Orchestra in copyright infringement case relating to album art and band merchandise, leading to favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eScottish software developer in copyright infringement case brought by its competitor, one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest ATM hardware and software companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProminent law firm in copyright infringement case relating to computer software used to process specialized financial transactions, successfully reversing preliminary injunction on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePublications International, Ltd. in a case brought by the makers of Beanie Babies plush toys arising out of the publication of a Beanie Babies collector\u0026rsquo;s guide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral Virtual Private Network (VPN) service providers, including ExpressVPN and Private Internet Access, in bet-the-industry copyright litigation brought by a group of independent movie production companies in courts throughout the country, seeking to hold VPN providers liable for the alleged movie piracy of individual consumers using VPN services. Recently negotiated favorable settlement for two VPNs, while proceeding to litigation for another.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMajor cosmetics company in connection with copyright infringement claims brought by major record and music publishing companies, based upon the posting or re-posting of videos that contain background music on social media accounts, including those by influencers and ordinary consumers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMusic Choice in connection with the current Preexisting Subscription Service license rate proceeding (SDARS IV) before the Copyright Royalty Board, as well as every prior rate proceeding for Music Choice since the creation of the CRB. Obtained the second rate decrease in the history of the CRB (and its predecessors) in same year when other licensees\u0026rsquo; rates were increased by over 40%. Recently won appeal of ancillary issue before the D.C. Circuit, obtaining rare reversal of both the Register of Copyrights and the Board.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade association Orchestra Music Licensing Association (\u0026ldquo;OMLA\u0026rdquo;), representing the interests of symphony orchestras in connection with various music rights and licensing issues, including Performing Rights Organization license negotiations, the Copyright Office\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;technical measures\u0026rdquo; study, and disputes regarding the creation and use of custom orchestrations of popular music by \u0026ldquo;pops\u0026rdquo; orchestras.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius XM Radio, Music Choice, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, and other music licensees in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s 2014-2015 and 2019-2021 reviews of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. In both review proceedings, Paul\u0026rsquo;s work resulted in DOJ closing the review without making any of the harmful changes requested by ASCAP, BMI, and music publishers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious digital music services and other music licensees in connection with the negotiation, drafting, and enactment of the Music Modernization Act, including assisting clients in preparing for testimony at congressional hearings, lobbying, and obtaining key changes in the legislation to advance clients\u0026rsquo; interests.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius XM Satellite Radio in the Webcasting IV royalty rate proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board, resulting in the first royalty rate decrease ever granted by the Board or its predecessors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational trade association for broadcasters and Music Choice in connection with Copyright Office music licensing policy hearings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe unsecured creditors\u0026rsquo; committee in the Cengage Learning bankruptcy, the largest Chapter 11 filing of 2013. Developed a novel copyright strategy that placed the liens on all the debtor\u0026rsquo;s copyrights at risk, leading to a significantly increased recovery for the unsecured creditors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSylvain Sylvain, founding member of seminal proto-punk band New York Dolls, successfully obtaining cancellation of trademark registration improperly obtained by David Johansen\u0026rsquo;s personal corporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMembers of The Allman Brothers Band in litigation against UMG Recordings, Inc. for failure to pay royalties at the correct rate for digital downloads and other digital exploitation of several classic albums by The Allman Brothers Band.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFamous artist Greg Hildebrandt, in DMCA fraudulent takedown notice litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst Niagara Insurance Brokers in $530 million trademark infringement action against First Niagara Financial Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBill Graham Archives LLC with respect to various copyright, trademark, right of publicity, and other intellectual property disputes relating to the operation of its Wolfgang\u0026rsquo;s Vault website and exploitation of its rights to a large collection of sound recordings, poster art, and vintage rock and roll memorabilia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDomain name registrar Register.com in obtaining a preliminary injunction, affirmed on appeal, stopping the defendant from harvesting customer data from Register.com\u0026rsquo;s WHOIS database.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn individual client in action to obtain subpoenas to trace identity of defendants who had posted defamatory statements on Internet forums.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA religious organization in a trademark action relating to the unauthorized use of the client\u0026rsquo;s trademark in a third-level domain name.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCaesar\u0026rsquo;s World, Inc. in one of the first in rem cases brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated preliminary injunction action brought by comedian Jackie Mason against a religious organization arising from the use of Mr. Mason\u0026rsquo;s name and likeness in a parody on a religious tract.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fakler","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Peter T. Fay, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"1998 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1998-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Top Music Lawyer”","detail":"Billboard Magazine"},{"title":"Ranked as a leading Media and Entertainment litigator, and Copyright and Trademark lawyer","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners USA"},{"title":"Ranked","detail":"The Legal 500"},{"title":"Named a WIPR leader","detail":"World IP Review"},{"title":"Ranked a “Premier IP Star (Litigation)” in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Fakler advises and helps favorably resolve cases for companies in the streaming, broadcasting, media, software, and other industries to advance their business objectives. Paul offers clients representation guided by a rich understanding of the intersection between music (and other content), technology, and business. He frequently speaks and publishes on legal developments in these fields and has over twenty-five years of experience litigating seminal cases involving the application of copyright and related law to digital media.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough he helps clients with issues across many types of content, Paul has particularly deep experience resolving copyright issues relating to music, where clients operating at the cutting edge of technology require equally innovative legal representation. Paul offers creative solutions based on his deep understanding of copyright law and technology through counseling, government relations, and \u0026ndash; when necessary \u0026ndash; litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs an experienced copyright lawyer, former software developer and amateur musician, he is also proficient in software copyright litigation and has been advising clients regarding copyright issues related to machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies for over a decade. He is one of the few lawyers in the country with extensive first-chair experience before the Copyright Royalty Board and other royalty rate setting venues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience spans many issues, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright issues implicated by the training and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDigital media and other technologies\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMusic licensing and copyright royalty rate litigation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoyalty audits and payment disputes\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright infringement disputes\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFair use and other defenses\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe DMCA and its safe harbor for online service providers\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopyright policy matters\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGovernment affairs\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLitigation \u0026amp; Licensing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has litigated numerous high-profile copyright cases involving digital media, copyright, and the Internet. He routinely represents digital music services, as well as other media, software, and consumer products companies, in negotiations and disputes with record labels, music publishers, and other rights holders. His clients in these groundbreaking cases have included MP3.com, Yahoo!, Veoh, MediaNet, Sirius XM Radio, Pandora Media, Bill Graham Archives, ExpressVPN, Private Internet Access, and Music Choice. Paul obtained the only two royalty rate reductions ever granted by the Copyright Royalty Board (or its predecessors) and often makes new law on issues such as the DMCA safe harbor and fair use through representing clients in bet-the-company copyright infringement litigation across many industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCounseling\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients seek Paul\u0026rsquo;s counsel in copyright, trademark, right of publicity, entertainment, computer, and Internet law issues in diverse industries, including the music, motion picture, publishing, software development, data security, and digital media industries.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGovernment Relations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also advises on strategies for shaping copyright policy and represents clients\u0026rsquo; interest before government entities that impact the copyright ecosystem, such as Congress, the Copyright Office, and the Department of Justice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients served by Paul have included Sirius XM, Pandora, Music Choice, the Orchestra Music Licensing Association, Google, the Television Music Licensing Committee, MediaNet, MP3.com, LaunchCast, Veoh Networks, and Express VPN.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003ePandora Media in group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora\u0026rsquo;s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license rights to the underlying jokes in addition to their existing licenses to stream the sound recordings. Paul served as head of a large, multidisciplinary team not only for Pandora\u0026rsquo;s defense of these actions, but also in counterclaims against the plaintiffs and Word Collections for violation of various antitrust laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMusic Choice, the world\u0026rsquo;s first digital music service, in litigation brought by SoundExchange, alleging underpayment of statutory license royalties for Music Choice\u0026rsquo;s commercial background music service.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral technology companies, from startups to a Fortune 500 semiconductor and software company, advising on the copyright issues raised by the training, commercialization, and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe Television Music Licensing Committee in connection with negotiations and potential rate court litigation against various Performing Rights Organizations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBill Graham Archives, operator of the Wolfgang\u0026rsquo;s and Concert Vault music services, in class action copyright infringement litigation arising from allegations that the company failed to secure mechanical and synchronization licenses for on-demand streaming of its collection of live concert audio and video recordings on its websites.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDigital music service MediaNet in litigations brought by various songwriters and music publishers relating to mechanical license requirements, leading to favorable settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMP3.com digital music service in various copyright infringement lawsuits brought by record labels and music publishers relating to music streaming service, including litigation of whether musical sound recordings are works made for hire under the Copyright Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eYahoo! in a copyright case brought by the recording industry, determining the eligibility of Yahoo!\u0026rsquo;s LaunchCast webcasting service for a statutory copyright license.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSymphonic rock band Trans-Siberian Orchestra in copyright infringement case relating to album art and band merchandise, leading to favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eScottish software developer in copyright infringement case brought by its competitor, one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest ATM hardware and software companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProminent law firm in copyright infringement case relating to computer software used to process specialized financial transactions, successfully reversing preliminary injunction on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePublications International, Ltd. in a case brought by the makers of Beanie Babies plush toys arising out of the publication of a Beanie Babies collector\u0026rsquo;s guide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral Virtual Private Network (VPN) service providers, including ExpressVPN and Private Internet Access, in bet-the-industry copyright litigation brought by a group of independent movie production companies in courts throughout the country, seeking to hold VPN providers liable for the alleged movie piracy of individual consumers using VPN services. Recently negotiated favorable settlement for two VPNs, while proceeding to litigation for another.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMajor cosmetics company in connection with copyright infringement claims brought by major record and music publishing companies, based upon the posting or re-posting of videos that contain background music on social media accounts, including those by influencers and ordinary consumers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMusic Choice in connection with the current Preexisting Subscription Service license rate proceeding (SDARS IV) before the Copyright Royalty Board, as well as every prior rate proceeding for Music Choice since the creation of the CRB. Obtained the second rate decrease in the history of the CRB (and its predecessors) in same year when other licensees\u0026rsquo; rates were increased by over 40%. Recently won appeal of ancillary issue before the D.C. Circuit, obtaining rare reversal of both the Register of Copyrights and the Board.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade association Orchestra Music Licensing Association (\u0026ldquo;OMLA\u0026rdquo;), representing the interests of symphony orchestras in connection with various music rights and licensing issues, including Performing Rights Organization license negotiations, the Copyright Office\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;technical measures\u0026rdquo; study, and disputes regarding the creation and use of custom orchestrations of popular music by \u0026ldquo;pops\u0026rdquo; orchestras.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius XM Radio, Music Choice, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, and other music licensees in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s 2014-2015 and 2019-2021 reviews of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. In both review proceedings, Paul\u0026rsquo;s work resulted in DOJ closing the review without making any of the harmful changes requested by ASCAP, BMI, and music publishers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious digital music services and other music licensees in connection with the negotiation, drafting, and enactment of the Music Modernization Act, including assisting clients in preparing for testimony at congressional hearings, lobbying, and obtaining key changes in the legislation to advance clients\u0026rsquo; interests.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius XM Satellite Radio in the Webcasting IV royalty rate proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board, resulting in the first royalty rate decrease ever granted by the Board or its predecessors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational trade association for broadcasters and Music Choice in connection with Copyright Office music licensing policy hearings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe unsecured creditors\u0026rsquo; committee in the Cengage Learning bankruptcy, the largest Chapter 11 filing of 2013. Developed a novel copyright strategy that placed the liens on all the debtor\u0026rsquo;s copyrights at risk, leading to a significantly increased recovery for the unsecured creditors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSylvain Sylvain, founding member of seminal proto-punk band New York Dolls, successfully obtaining cancellation of trademark registration improperly obtained by David Johansen\u0026rsquo;s personal corporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMembers of The Allman Brothers Band in litigation against UMG Recordings, Inc. for failure to pay royalties at the correct rate for digital downloads and other digital exploitation of several classic albums by The Allman Brothers Band.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFamous artist Greg Hildebrandt, in DMCA fraudulent takedown notice litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFirst Niagara Insurance Brokers in $530 million trademark infringement action against First Niagara Financial Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBill Graham Archives LLC with respect to various copyright, trademark, right of publicity, and other intellectual property disputes relating to the operation of its Wolfgang\u0026rsquo;s Vault website and exploitation of its rights to a large collection of sound recordings, poster art, and vintage rock and roll memorabilia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDomain name registrar Register.com in obtaining a preliminary injunction, affirmed on appeal, stopping the defendant from harvesting customer data from Register.com\u0026rsquo;s WHOIS database.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn individual client in action to obtain subpoenas to trace identity of defendants who had posted defamatory statements on Internet forums.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA religious organization in a trademark action relating to the unauthorized use of the client\u0026rsquo;s trademark in a third-level domain name.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCaesar\u0026rsquo;s World, Inc. in one of the first in rem cases brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated preliminary injunction action brought by comedian Jackie Mason against a religious organization arising from the use of Mr. Mason\u0026rsquo;s name and likeness in a parody on a religious tract.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Top Music Lawyer”","detail":"Billboard Magazine"},{"title":"Ranked as a leading Media and Entertainment litigator, and Copyright and Trademark lawyer","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners USA"},{"title":"Ranked","detail":"The Legal 500"},{"title":"Named a WIPR leader","detail":"World IP Review"},{"title":"Ranked a “Premier IP Star (Litigation)” in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13303}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-20T22:04:02.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-20T22:04:02.000Z","searchable_text":"Fakler{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top Music Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Billboard Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a leading Media and Entertainment litigator, and Copyright and Trademark lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers \u0026amp; Partners USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a WIPR leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"World IP Review\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked a “Premier IP Star (Litigation)” in New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property\"}{{ FIELD }}Pandora Media in group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora’s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license rights to the underlying jokes in addition to their existing licenses to stream the sound recordings. Paul served as head of a large, multidisciplinary team not only for Pandora’s defense of these actions, but also in counterclaims against the plaintiffs and Word Collections for violation of various antitrust laws.{{ FIELD }}Music Choice, the world’s first digital music service, in litigation brought by SoundExchange, alleging underpayment of statutory license royalties for Music Choice’s commercial background music service.{{ FIELD }}Several technology companies, from startups to a Fortune 500 semiconductor and software company, advising on the copyright issues raised by the training, commercialization, and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning technologies.{{ FIELD }}The Television Music Licensing Committee in connection with negotiations and potential rate court litigation against various Performing Rights Organizations.{{ FIELD }}Bill Graham Archives, operator of the Wolfgang’s and Concert Vault music services, in class action copyright infringement litigation arising from allegations that the company failed to secure mechanical and synchronization licenses for on-demand streaming of its collection of live concert audio and video recordings on its websites.{{ FIELD }}Digital music service MediaNet in litigations brought by various songwriters and music publishers relating to mechanical license requirements, leading to favorable settlements.{{ FIELD }}MP3.com digital music service in various copyright infringement lawsuits brought by record labels and music publishers relating to music streaming service, including litigation of whether musical sound recordings are works made for hire under the Copyright Act.{{ FIELD }}Yahoo! in a copyright case brought by the recording industry, determining the eligibility of Yahoo!’s LaunchCast webcasting service for a statutory copyright license.{{ FIELD }}Symphonic rock band Trans-Siberian Orchestra in copyright infringement case relating to album art and band merchandise, leading to favorable settlement.{{ FIELD }}Scottish software developer in copyright infringement case brought by its competitor, one of the world’s largest ATM hardware and software companies.{{ FIELD }}Prominent law firm in copyright infringement case relating to computer software used to process specialized financial transactions, successfully reversing preliminary injunction on appeal to the Second Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Publications International, Ltd. in a case brought by the makers of Beanie Babies plush toys arising out of the publication of a Beanie Babies collector’s guide.{{ FIELD }}Several Virtual Private Network (VPN) service providers, including ExpressVPN and Private Internet Access, in bet-the-industry copyright litigation brought by a group of independent movie production companies in courts throughout the country, seeking to hold VPN providers liable for the alleged movie piracy of individual consumers using VPN services. Recently negotiated favorable settlement for two VPNs, while proceeding to litigation for another.{{ FIELD }}Major cosmetics company in connection with copyright infringement claims brought by major record and music publishing companies, based upon the posting or re-posting of videos that contain background music on social media accounts, including those by influencers and ordinary consumers.{{ FIELD }}Music Choice in connection with the current Preexisting Subscription Service license rate proceeding (SDARS IV) before the Copyright Royalty Board, as well as every prior rate proceeding for Music Choice since the creation of the CRB. Obtained the second rate decrease in the history of the CRB (and its predecessors) in same year when other licensees’ rates were increased by over 40%. Recently won appeal of ancillary issue before the D.C. Circuit, obtaining rare reversal of both the Register of Copyrights and the Board.{{ FIELD }}Trade association Orchestra Music Licensing Association (“OMLA”), representing the interests of symphony orchestras in connection with various music rights and licensing issues, including Performing Rights Organization license negotiations, the Copyright Office’s “technical measures” study, and disputes regarding the creation and use of custom orchestrations of popular music by “pops” orchestras.{{ FIELD }}Sirius XM Radio, Music Choice, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, and other music licensees in connection with the Department of Justice’s 2014-2015 and 2019-2021 reviews of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. In both review proceedings, Paul’s work resulted in DOJ closing the review without making any of the harmful changes requested by ASCAP, BMI, and music publishers.{{ FIELD }}Various digital music services and other music licensees in connection with the negotiation, drafting, and enactment of the Music Modernization Act, including assisting clients in preparing for testimony at congressional hearings, lobbying, and obtaining key changes in the legislation to advance clients’ interests.{{ FIELD }}Sirius XM Satellite Radio in the Webcasting IV royalty rate proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board, resulting in the first royalty rate decrease ever granted by the Board or its predecessors.{{ FIELD }}National trade association for broadcasters and Music Choice in connection with Copyright Office music licensing policy hearings.{{ FIELD }}The unsecured creditors’ committee in the Cengage Learning bankruptcy, the largest Chapter 11 filing of 2013. Developed a novel copyright strategy that placed the liens on all the debtor’s copyrights at risk, leading to a significantly increased recovery for the unsecured creditors.{{ FIELD }}Sylvain Sylvain, founding member of seminal proto-punk band New York Dolls, successfully obtaining cancellation of trademark registration improperly obtained by David Johansen’s personal corporation.{{ FIELD }}Members of The Allman Brothers Band in litigation against UMG Recordings, Inc. for failure to pay royalties at the correct rate for digital downloads and other digital exploitation of several classic albums by The Allman Brothers Band.{{ FIELD }}Famous artist Greg Hildebrandt, in DMCA fraudulent takedown notice litigation.{{ FIELD }}First Niagara Insurance Brokers in $530 million trademark infringement action against First Niagara Financial Group.{{ FIELD }}Bill Graham Archives LLC with respect to various copyright, trademark, right of publicity, and other intellectual property disputes relating to the operation of its Wolfgang’s Vault website and exploitation of its rights to a large collection of sound recordings, poster art, and vintage rock and roll memorabilia.{{ FIELD }}Domain name registrar Register.com in obtaining a preliminary injunction, affirmed on appeal, stopping the defendant from harvesting customer data from Register.com’s WHOIS database.{{ FIELD }}An individual client in action to obtain subpoenas to trace identity of defendants who had posted defamatory statements on Internet forums.{{ FIELD }}A religious organization in a trademark action relating to the unauthorized use of the client’s trademark in a third-level domain name.{{ FIELD }}Caesar’s World, Inc. in one of the first in rem cases brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.{{ FIELD }}Defeated preliminary injunction action brought by comedian Jackie Mason against a religious organization arising from the use of Mr. Mason’s name and likeness in a parody on a religious tract.{{ FIELD }}Paul Fakler advises and helps favorably resolve cases for companies in the streaming, broadcasting, media, software, and other industries to advance their business objectives. Paul offers clients representation guided by a rich understanding of the intersection between music (and other content), technology, and business. He frequently speaks and publishes on legal developments in these fields and has over twenty-five years of experience litigating seminal cases involving the application of copyright and related law to digital media.\nAlthough he helps clients with issues across many types of content, Paul has particularly deep experience resolving copyright issues relating to music, where clients operating at the cutting edge of technology require equally innovative legal representation. Paul offers creative solutions based on his deep understanding of copyright law and technology through counseling, government relations, and – when necessary – litigation.\nAs an experienced copyright lawyer, former software developer and amateur musician, he is also proficient in software copyright litigation and has been advising clients regarding copyright issues related to machine learning and artificial intelligence technologies for over a decade. He is one of the few lawyers in the country with extensive first-chair experience before the Copyright Royalty Board and other royalty rate setting venues.\nHis experience spans many issues, including:\n\nCopyright issues implicated by the training and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning\nDigital media and other technologies\nMusic licensing and copyright royalty rate litigation\nRoyalty audits and payment disputes\nCopyright infringement disputes\nFair use and other defenses\nThe DMCA and its safe harbor for online service providers\nCopyright policy matters\nGovernment affairs\n\nLitigation \u0026amp; Licensing\nPaul has litigated numerous high-profile copyright cases involving digital media, copyright, and the Internet. He routinely represents digital music services, as well as other media, software, and consumer products companies, in negotiations and disputes with record labels, music publishers, and other rights holders. His clients in these groundbreaking cases have included MP3.com, Yahoo!, Veoh, MediaNet, Sirius XM Radio, Pandora Media, Bill Graham Archives, ExpressVPN, Private Internet Access, and Music Choice. Paul obtained the only two royalty rate reductions ever granted by the Copyright Royalty Board (or its predecessors) and often makes new law on issues such as the DMCA safe harbor and fair use through representing clients in bet-the-company copyright infringement litigation across many industries.\nCounseling\nClients seek Paul’s counsel in copyright, trademark, right of publicity, entertainment, computer, and Internet law issues in diverse industries, including the music, motion picture, publishing, software development, data security, and digital media industries.\nGovernment Relations\nHe also advises on strategies for shaping copyright policy and represents clients’ interest before government entities that impact the copyright ecosystem, such as Congress, the Copyright Office, and the Department of Justice.\nClients served by Paul have included Sirius XM, Pandora, Music Choice, the Orchestra Music Licensing Association, Google, the Television Music Licensing Committee, MediaNet, MP3.com, LaunchCast, Veoh Networks, and Express VPN. Partner “Top Music Lawyer” Billboard Magazine Ranked as a leading Media and Entertainment litigator, and Copyright and Trademark lawyer Chambers \u0026amp; Partners USA Ranked The Legal 500 Named a WIPR leader World IP Review Ranked a “Premier IP Star (Litigation)” in New York Managing Intellectual Property Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia New York Clerked for the Hon. Peter T. Fay, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit New York State Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section, Former Chair Copyright Society of the USA, Member Law Clerk, Hon. Peter T. Fay, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Pandora Media in group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora’s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license rights to the underlying jokes in addition to their existing licenses to stream the sound recordings. Paul served as head of a large, multidisciplinary team not only for Pandora’s defense of these actions, but also in counterclaims against the plaintiffs and Word Collections for violation of various antitrust laws. Music Choice, the world’s first digital music service, in litigation brought by SoundExchange, alleging underpayment of statutory license royalties for Music Choice’s commercial background music service. Several technology companies, from startups to a Fortune 500 semiconductor and software company, advising on the copyright issues raised by the training, commercialization, and use of artificial intelligence and other machine learning technologies. The Television Music Licensing Committee in connection with negotiations and potential rate court litigation against various Performing Rights Organizations. Bill Graham Archives, operator of the Wolfgang’s and Concert Vault music services, in class action copyright infringement litigation arising from allegations that the company failed to secure mechanical and synchronization licenses for on-demand streaming of its collection of live concert audio and video recordings on its websites. Digital music service MediaNet in litigations brought by various songwriters and music publishers relating to mechanical license requirements, leading to favorable settlements. MP3.com digital music service in various copyright infringement lawsuits brought by record labels and music publishers relating to music streaming service, including litigation of whether musical sound recordings are works made for hire under the Copyright Act. Yahoo! in a copyright case brought by the recording industry, determining the eligibility of Yahoo!’s LaunchCast webcasting service for a statutory copyright license. Symphonic rock band Trans-Siberian Orchestra in copyright infringement case relating to album art and band merchandise, leading to favorable settlement. Scottish software developer in copyright infringement case brought by its competitor, one of the world’s largest ATM hardware and software companies. Prominent law firm in copyright infringement case relating to computer software used to process specialized financial transactions, successfully reversing preliminary injunction on appeal to the Second Circuit. Publications International, Ltd. in a case brought by the makers of Beanie Babies plush toys arising out of the publication of a Beanie Babies collector’s guide. Several Virtual Private Network (VPN) service providers, including ExpressVPN and Private Internet Access, in bet-the-industry copyright litigation brought by a group of independent movie production companies in courts throughout the country, seeking to hold VPN providers liable for the alleged movie piracy of individual consumers using VPN services. Recently negotiated favorable settlement for two VPNs, while proceeding to litigation for another. Major cosmetics company in connection with copyright infringement claims brought by major record and music publishing companies, based upon the posting or re-posting of videos that contain background music on social media accounts, including those by influencers and ordinary consumers. Music Choice in connection with the current Preexisting Subscription Service license rate proceeding (SDARS IV) before the Copyright Royalty Board, as well as every prior rate proceeding for Music Choice since the creation of the CRB. Obtained the second rate decrease in the history of the CRB (and its predecessors) in same year when other licensees’ rates were increased by over 40%. Recently won appeal of ancillary issue before the D.C. Circuit, obtaining rare reversal of both the Register of Copyrights and the Board. Trade association Orchestra Music Licensing Association (“OMLA”), representing the interests of symphony orchestras in connection with various music rights and licensing issues, including Performing Rights Organization license negotiations, the Copyright Office’s “technical measures” study, and disputes regarding the creation and use of custom orchestrations of popular music by “pops” orchestras. Sirius XM Radio, Music Choice, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, and other music licensees in connection with the Department of Justice’s 2014-2015 and 2019-2021 reviews of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. In both review proceedings, Paul’s work resulted in DOJ closing the review without making any of the harmful changes requested by ASCAP, BMI, and music publishers. Various digital music services and other music licensees in connection with the negotiation, drafting, and enactment of the Music Modernization Act, including assisting clients in preparing for testimony at congressional hearings, lobbying, and obtaining key changes in the legislation to advance clients’ interests. Sirius XM Satellite Radio in the Webcasting IV royalty rate proceeding before the Copyright Royalty Board, resulting in the first royalty rate decrease ever granted by the Board or its predecessors. National trade association for broadcasters and Music Choice in connection with Copyright Office music licensing policy hearings. The unsecured creditors’ committee in the Cengage Learning bankruptcy, the largest Chapter 11 filing of 2013. Developed a novel copyright strategy that placed the liens on all the debtor’s copyrights at risk, leading to a significantly increased recovery for the unsecured creditors. Sylvain Sylvain, founding member of seminal proto-punk band New York Dolls, successfully obtaining cancellation of trademark registration improperly obtained by David Johansen’s personal corporation. Members of The Allman Brothers Band in litigation against UMG Recordings, Inc. for failure to pay royalties at the correct rate for digital downloads and other digital exploitation of several classic albums by The Allman Brothers Band. Famous artist Greg Hildebrandt, in DMCA fraudulent takedown notice litigation. First Niagara Insurance Brokers in $530 million trademark infringement action against First Niagara Financial Group. Bill Graham Archives LLC with respect to various copyright, trademark, right of publicity, and other intellectual property disputes relating to the operation of its Wolfgang’s Vault website and exploitation of its rights to a large collection of sound recordings, poster art, and vintage rock and roll memorabilia. Domain name registrar Register.com in obtaining a preliminary injunction, affirmed on appeal, stopping the defendant from harvesting customer data from Register.com’s WHOIS database. An individual client in action to obtain subpoenas to trace identity of defendants who had posted defamatory statements on Internet forums. A religious organization in a trademark action relating to the unauthorized use of the client’s trademark in a third-level domain name. Caesar’s World, Inc. in one of the first in rem cases brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Defeated preliminary injunction action brought by comedian Jackie Mason against a religious organization arising from the use of Mr. Mason’s name and likeness in a parody on a religious tract.","searchable_name":"Paul Fakler","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447984,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7311,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Ferguson is recognized among the leading patent lawyers in the United States. He has 35 years of experience representing Fortune 100 innovator companies before all of the major patent law venues\u0026mdash;the ITC, district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB\u0026mdash;in high-stakes IP disputes involving an array of technologies. A leading publication described him as a \u0026ldquo;master technician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian represents clients in all phases of patent infringement and validity disputes before U.S. district courts, Section 337 investigations before the ITC, and adversarial matters before the PTAB, which includes successfully representing clients in nearly 150\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings. He also has substantial experience litigating patent-related appellate proceedings, including dozens of appeals before the Federal Circuit, where he has argued over 20 times. Additionally, Brian has a broad range of first-chair trial and pre-trial experience in both U.S. district courts and at the ITC. In addition to his patent work, Brian has experience handling other intellectual property disputes, including trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigations. Among his pro bono activities, he has assisted inventors with preparing and filing patent and trademark applications. In 2024, Brian was named Chair of The Sedona Conference\u0026rsquo;s Working Group 10 on \u0026ldquo;Best Practices in Patent Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian has a degree in electrical engineering and is regularly called upon to litigate cases involving sophisticated technologies, including analog and digital integrated circuit designs, computer source code and software design, wearable fitness technology, semiconductor processes, medical technology such as heart valve and annuloplasty devices, injection devices, magnetic image resonance technology, airplane engine design, internet technology, the Internet of Things (IOT), telecommunications hardware and software, digital printing technology, digital cameras, predictive text, and speech recognition technology. He also has handled numerous matters in the chemical space, including batteries and herbicides.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is regularly recognized by international business and industry publications as a leader in patent law. Since 2013, he has been a recommended lawyer nationwide by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e, including in the areas of patent litigation and ITC proceedings and recognized as a \u0026ldquo;Patent Star\u0026rdquo; in Washington, D.C. by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u0026rsquo;s IP Stars.\u003c/em\u003e Since 2012, he has been named among the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Patent Practitioners by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, which recently stated that Brian\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;niche lies in cases involving sophisticated technologies, as he leverages his engineering background to offer tailored insight.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has also called him a \u0026ldquo;veteran enforcer and protector for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s major technology companies,\u0026rdquo; and noted that he is a \u0026ldquo;master tactician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo; In 2012, he was recognized as a \u0026ldquo;BTI Client Service All-Star\u0026rdquo; by BTI Consulting Group. He also has been repeatedly recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is a respected thought leader in the technology sector and in academia. For several years, he taught a course on patent litigation as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University School of Law. He also regularly authors articles on patent litigation and technology topics, including the \u0026ldquo;Discovery and Privilege\u0026rdquo; chapter in the book\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePatent Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(PLI Press).\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"brian-ferguson","email":"bferguson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eCore Scientific\u003c/strong\u003e in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading U.S. home goods supplier\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel in numerous \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e and post-grant review proceedings for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading oil and gas exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor\u0026rsquo;s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s top technology companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board\u0026rsquo;s invalidity finding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003einnovator medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in PTAB\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading marine technology provider\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to an \u003cstrong\u003einternational technology conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDozens of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of software systems for healthcare providers\u003c/strong\u003e in multi-front district court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading innovator sports equipment company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of nicotine delivery products\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003epioneering\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003esemiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003espeech recognition technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Ferguson","nick_name":"Brian","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Brian","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2118,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1991-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026"},{"title":"“Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings”","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal)","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Patents","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2025"},{"title":"Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025"},{"title":"“Patent Star” in Washington, DC","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-e-ferguson/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Ferguson is recognized among the leading patent lawyers in the United States. He has 35 years of experience representing Fortune 100 innovator companies before all of the major patent law venues\u0026mdash;the ITC, district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB\u0026mdash;in high-stakes IP disputes involving an array of technologies. A leading publication described him as a \u0026ldquo;master technician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian represents clients in all phases of patent infringement and validity disputes before U.S. district courts, Section 337 investigations before the ITC, and adversarial matters before the PTAB, which includes successfully representing clients in nearly 150\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings. He also has substantial experience litigating patent-related appellate proceedings, including dozens of appeals before the Federal Circuit, where he has argued over 20 times. Additionally, Brian has a broad range of first-chair trial and pre-trial experience in both U.S. district courts and at the ITC. In addition to his patent work, Brian has experience handling other intellectual property disputes, including trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigations. Among his pro bono activities, he has assisted inventors with preparing and filing patent and trademark applications. In 2024, Brian was named Chair of The Sedona Conference\u0026rsquo;s Working Group 10 on \u0026ldquo;Best Practices in Patent Litigation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian has a degree in electrical engineering and is regularly called upon to litigate cases involving sophisticated technologies, including analog and digital integrated circuit designs, computer source code and software design, wearable fitness technology, semiconductor processes, medical technology such as heart valve and annuloplasty devices, injection devices, magnetic image resonance technology, airplane engine design, internet technology, the Internet of Things (IOT), telecommunications hardware and software, digital printing technology, digital cameras, predictive text, and speech recognition technology. He also has handled numerous matters in the chemical space, including batteries and herbicides.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is regularly recognized by international business and industry publications as a leader in patent law. Since 2013, he has been a recommended lawyer nationwide by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e, including in the areas of patent litigation and ITC proceedings and recognized as a \u0026ldquo;Patent Star\u0026rdquo; in Washington, D.C. by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u0026rsquo;s IP Stars.\u003c/em\u003e Since 2012, he has been named among the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Patent Practitioners by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, which recently stated that Brian\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;niche lies in cases involving sophisticated technologies, as he leverages his engineering background to offer tailored insight.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIAM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has also called him a \u0026ldquo;veteran enforcer and protector for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s major technology companies,\u0026rdquo; and noted that he is a \u0026ldquo;master tactician\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.\u0026rdquo; In 2012, he was recognized as a \u0026ldquo;BTI Client Service All-Star\u0026rdquo; by BTI Consulting Group. He also has been repeatedly recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is a respected thought leader in the technology sector and in academia. For several years, he taught a course on patent litigation as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University School of Law. He also regularly authors articles on patent litigation and technology topics, including the \u0026ldquo;Discovery and Privilege\u0026rdquo; chapter in the book\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePatent Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(PLI Press).\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eCore Scientific\u003c/strong\u003e in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading U.S. home goods supplier\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices\u003c/strong\u003e in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent case against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as co-lead counsel to a \u003cstrong\u003eleading medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel in numerous \u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003e and post-grant review proceedings for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading oil and gas exploration company\u003c/strong\u003e. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor\u0026rsquo;s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to \u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s top technology companies\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board\u0026rsquo;s invalidity finding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003einnovator medical device company\u003c/strong\u003e in PTAB\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading marine technology provider\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServing as lead counsel to an \u003cstrong\u003einternational technology conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDozens of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style=\"padding-left: 30px;\"\u003eDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of software systems for healthcare providers\u003c/strong\u003e in multi-front district court litigation and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter partes\u003c/em\u003ereview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading innovator sports equipment company\u003c/strong\u003e in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of nicotine delivery products\u003c/strong\u003e in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003epioneering\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003esemiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading international insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003espeech recognition technology company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026"},{"title":"“Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings”","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal)","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2025"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Patents","detail":"WIPR Leaders, 2025"},{"title":"Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025"},{"title":"“Patent Star” in Washington, DC","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13350}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-01T19:59:13.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-01T19:59:13.000Z","searchable_text":"Ferguson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Patexia, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Global IP Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2022–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Patents\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"WIPR Leaders, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Patent Star” in Washington, DC\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to Core Scientific in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to a leading U.S. home goods supplier in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics in a patent case against a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading medical device company in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel in numerous inter partes and post-grant review proceedings for a leading oil and gas exploration company. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor’s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to one of the world’s top technology companies in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\nDistrict court litigation, inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board’s invalidity finding.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\nDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\nDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\nDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\nA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\nMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology.{{ FIELD }}Defending a leading international insurance company in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading manufacturing company in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading chemical company in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology.{{ FIELD }}Representing an innovator medical device company in PTAB inter partesreview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading marine technology provider in district court and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating.{{ FIELD }}Serving as lead counsel to an international technology conglomerate and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\nDozens of inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\nDistrict court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\nDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading provider of software systems for healthcare providers in multi-front district court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading innovator sports equipment company in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading provider of nicotine delivery products in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for a pioneering semiconductor company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for a leading international insurance company and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for a speech recognition technology company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.{{ FIELD }}Brian Ferguson is recognized among the leading patent lawyers in the United States. He has 35 years of experience representing Fortune 100 innovator companies before all of the major patent law venues—the ITC, district courts, the Federal Circuit, and the PTAB—in high-stakes IP disputes involving an array of technologies. A leading publication described him as a “master technician” who “calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.”\nBrian represents clients in all phases of patent infringement and validity disputes before U.S. district courts, Section 337 investigations before the ITC, and adversarial matters before the PTAB, which includes successfully representing clients in nearly 150 inter partes review proceedings. He also has substantial experience litigating patent-related appellate proceedings, including dozens of appeals before the Federal Circuit, where he has argued over 20 times. Additionally, Brian has a broad range of first-chair trial and pre-trial experience in both U.S. district courts and at the ITC. In addition to his patent work, Brian has experience handling other intellectual property disputes, including trade secret, trademark, and copyright litigations. Among his pro bono activities, he has assisted inventors with preparing and filing patent and trademark applications. In 2024, Brian was named Chair of The Sedona Conference’s Working Group 10 on “Best Practices in Patent Litigation.”\nBrian has a degree in electrical engineering and is regularly called upon to litigate cases involving sophisticated technologies, including analog and digital integrated circuit designs, computer source code and software design, wearable fitness technology, semiconductor processes, medical technology such as heart valve and annuloplasty devices, injection devices, magnetic image resonance technology, airplane engine design, internet technology, the Internet of Things (IOT), telecommunications hardware and software, digital printing technology, digital cameras, predictive text, and speech recognition technology. He also has handled numerous matters in the chemical space, including batteries and herbicides.\nBrian is regularly recognized by international business and industry publications as a leader in patent law. Since 2013, he has been a recommended lawyer nationwide by The Legal 500 US, including in the areas of patent litigation and ITC proceedings and recognized as a “Patent Star” in Washington, D.C. by Managing Intellectual Property’s IP Stars. Since 2012, he has been named among the World’s Leading Patent Practitioners by the IAM Patent 1000, which recently stated that Brian’s “niche lies in cases involving sophisticated technologies, as he leverages his engineering background to offer tailored insight.” IAM has also called him a “veteran enforcer and protector for some of the world’s major technology companies,” and noted that he is a “master tactician” who “calls the right play at every stage of a case, whatever the forum.” In 2012, he was recognized as a “BTI Client Service All-Star” by BTI Consulting Group. He also has been repeatedly recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® and Super Lawyers.\nBrian is a respected thought leader in the technology sector and in academia. For several years, he taught a course on patent litigation as an adjunct professor at the George Washington University School of Law. He also regularly authors articles on patent litigation and technology topics, including the “Discovery and Privilege” chapter in the book Patent Litigation (PLI Press). Partner Litigation—Intellectual Property and Litigation—Patent The Best Lawyers in America®, 2011–2026 “Top 250 Leading Attorney for PTAB Proceedings” Patexia, 2024–2025 “Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation The Legal 500 US, 2022–2023 “Key Lawyer” for Dispute Resolution: Appellate: Courts of Appeals/Appellate: Supreme Courts (States and Federal) The Legal 500 US, 2022–2024 “500 Leading Global IP Lawyers” Lawdragon, 2025 “500 Leading Litigators in America” for IP Litigation, Including Patent Lawdragon, 2022–2026 Recognized for Patents WIPR Leaders, 2025 Honored with a silver ranking for Patent Litigation in the DC metro area IAM Patent 1000, 2012–2025 “Patent Star” in Washington, DC Managing Intellectual Property “IP Stars,” 2016–2022; 2025 Union College  Union College Albany Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Patent and Trademark Office District of Columbia New York Member, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association Chair of Working Group 10 for “Best Practices in Patent Litigation”, The Sedona Conference, 2024-present Member, PTAB Bar Association Former member, Board of Directors of Give an Hour, a non-profit organization devoted to providing mental health services to U.S. veterans and their families Serving as lead counsel to Core Scientific in ongoing litigation concerning high performance computing and bitcoin mining. This case is one of the first involving patent assertions against the cryptocurrency blockchain. Serving as co-lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a patent case concerning cluster computing and AI chips. Serving as lead counsel to a leading U.S. home goods supplier in a Section 337 ITC investigation involving combination microwave/vent hood products. Serving as lead counsel to Advanced Micro Devices in a Section 337 trial in the ITC, where the administrative law judge invalidated all patents asserted against AMD. Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading provider of sample and assay technologies for molecular diagnostics in a patent case against a competitor. Serving as co-lead counsel to a leading medical device company in a trial in the ITC, with the matter settling on the last day of trial. Serving as lead counsel in numerous inter partes and post-grant review proceedings for a leading oil and gas exploration company. One successful result included arguing to the PTAB in a PGR proceeding that a competitor’s patent was invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter. Serving as lead counsel to one of the world’s top technology companies in connection with important patent disputes in courts around the United States, including:\nDistrict court litigation, inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a dispute relating to remote display technology. The PTAB invalidated the challenged claims after oral argument, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed the Board’s invalidity finding.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation, district court litigation, and a Federal Circuit appeal in a series of disputes relating to certain IOT devices.\nAn ITC Section 337 investigation and district court litigation involving radio frequency chipsets.\nDistrict court litigation in a dispute relating to error-protection coding used in cellular service protocols.\nDistrict court litigation involving five patents relating to battery monitoring technology.\nDistrict court litigation involving a patent directed to radio frequency transceivers.\nA series of cases in district court, the Federal Circuit, and the ITC involving claims of infringement of more than 40 patents and including cutting-edge issues such as FRAND licensing rates, the appropriateness of injunctive relief, and the role of experts in calculating damages.\nMultiple district court and ITC actions regarding digital camera technology. Defending a leading international insurance company in a trademark infringement lawsuit asserting damages worth in excess of US$1 billion. Representing a leading manufacturing company in district court litigation involving patents directed to adjustable suspension systems for vehicles. Representing a leading chemical company in a declaratory judgment district court proceeding brought by a competitor involving herbicide technology. Representing an innovator medical device company in PTAB inter partesreview proceedings and Federal Circuit appeal against a competitor relating to surgical stapling technology. Representing a leading marine technology provider in district court and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving navigation systems for recreational boating. Serving as lead counsel to an international technology conglomerate and a number of its principal divisions in significant patent disputes, including:\nDozens of inter partesreview proceedings before the PTAB involving turbine engines used in airliners, as well as numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.\nDistrict court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings against a competitor involving patents relating to wind turbine technology.\nDistrict court litigation against a competitor seeking a preliminary injunction concerning hand-hygiene monitoring systems for hospitals. The Court denied the preliminary injunction request. Representing a leading provider of software systems for healthcare providers in multi-front district court litigation and inter partesreview proceedings adverse to a competitor, related to speech recognition, computer-assisted physician documentation and transcription technology. Representing a leading innovator sports equipment company in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings brought by a competitor involving accusations of infringement of 13 patents related to wearable technology and mobile fitness applications. Representing a leading provider of nicotine delivery products in district court and IPR proceedings against a competitor involving e-vapor and smokeless tobacco-derived products. Served as lead counsel for a pioneering semiconductor company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving semiconductor processing technology. Served as lead counsel for a leading international insurance company and 17 subsidiaries in a patent case involving interactive voice processing technology. Served as lead counsel for a speech recognition technology company in an ITC Section 337 investigation involving soft keyboard input technology. The investigation was terminated after the respondent agreed to redesign the keyboards accused of infringement.","searchable_name":"Brian E. Ferguson","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":442799,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5621,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eEd is an experienced trial lawyer and is a partner in our Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice and is located in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Austin office. He has been recognized nationally for representing clients in a range of litigation issues, including complex business litigation, energy disputes, professional liability, securities litigation, patent litigation and trade secrets. Ed has experience trying high-stakes cases in both state and federal courts throughout the United States.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis representation of clients has awarded him several national and local distinctions from leading publications like\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAustin Black Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"edward-fernandes","email":"efernandes@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest specialty chemical companies in a six-week trade secret jury trial against a competitor resulting in a $152 million jury verdict for the client. The verdict was identified by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of the 10 largest verdicts in the U.S. in 2006.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. Bank in a $400 million fraud case brought by a Mexican pharmaceutical company resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client after a multi-week jury trial and awarding the client $2 million in attorneys' fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major manufacturer in a $270 million antitrust lawsuit resulting in a directed verdict for the client after seven weeks of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major venture capital firm in a $300 million breach of contract case by a Spanish language television station resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a river authority in a federal bench trial defending claims that water diversions caused the death of whooping cranes in violation of the Endangered Species Act. After the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the 5th Circuit reversed and rendered, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause and foreseeability as a matter of law. Law360 named the case one of the top five environmental cases of the year.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. bank in a four-week trial successfully defending an action by the FDIC seeking $1.2 billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major international software company in connection with a $1.3 billion patent infringement and trade secret dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest accounting firms in connection with a $500 million negligence/malpractice lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest utility companies in the defense of a $200 million class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major law firm in an $80 million class action involving claims of aiding and abetting securities violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest medical devices manufacturers in connection with a $1 billion patent infringement and trade secrets case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest banks in a suit by 54 foreign investors alleging fraud and aiding and abetting securities violations and seeking more than $27 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a bankruptcy trustee in a highly publicized bankruptcy case involving one of the nation's largest mortgage fraud cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international telecommunications provider in a $15 million fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fernandes","nick_name":"Ed","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Edward","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":485,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1983-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"F.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Selected as one of the 2019 “Top 10 Central Texas Super Lawyers”","detail":"Austin Black Business Journal"},{"title":"Selected as a “Best Lawyer for Commercial Litigation” and “Litigation – Environmental” in Texas","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2012 – 2019"},{"title":"Recognized by The National Law Journal in its feature “Winning” ranking that profiles that nation’s top 10 litigators ","detail":"2004"},{"title":"Recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America”","detail":"The National Law Journal, 2008"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eEd is an experienced trial lawyer and is a partner in our Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice and is located in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Austin office. He has been recognized nationally for representing clients in a range of litigation issues, including complex business litigation, energy disputes, professional liability, securities litigation, patent litigation and trade secrets. Ed has experience trying high-stakes cases in both state and federal courts throughout the United States.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis representation of clients has awarded him several national and local distinctions from leading publications like\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAustin Black Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest specialty chemical companies in a six-week trade secret jury trial against a competitor resulting in a $152 million jury verdict for the client. The verdict was identified by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of the 10 largest verdicts in the U.S. in 2006.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. Bank in a $400 million fraud case brought by a Mexican pharmaceutical company resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client after a multi-week jury trial and awarding the client $2 million in attorneys' fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major manufacturer in a $270 million antitrust lawsuit resulting in a directed verdict for the client after seven weeks of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major venture capital firm in a $300 million breach of contract case by a Spanish language television station resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a river authority in a federal bench trial defending claims that water diversions caused the death of whooping cranes in violation of the Endangered Species Act. After the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the 5th Circuit reversed and rendered, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause and foreseeability as a matter of law. Law360 named the case one of the top five environmental cases of the year.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. bank in a four-week trial successfully defending an action by the FDIC seeking $1.2 billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major international software company in connection with a $1.3 billion patent infringement and trade secret dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest accounting firms in connection with a $500 million negligence/malpractice lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest utility companies in the defense of a $200 million class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major law firm in an $80 million class action involving claims of aiding and abetting securities violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest medical devices manufacturers in connection with a $1 billion patent infringement and trade secrets case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest banks in a suit by 54 foreign investors alleging fraud and aiding and abetting securities violations and seeking more than $27 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a bankruptcy trustee in a highly publicized bankruptcy case involving one of the nation's largest mortgage fraud cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international telecommunications provider in a $15 million fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Selected as one of the 2019 “Top 10 Central Texas Super Lawyers”","detail":"Austin Black Business Journal"},{"title":"Selected as a “Best Lawyer for Commercial Litigation” and “Litigation – Environmental” in Texas","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2012 – 2019"},{"title":"Recognized by The National Law Journal in its feature “Winning” ranking that profiles that nation’s top 10 litigators ","detail":"2004"},{"title":"Recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America”","detail":"The National Law Journal, 2008"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7212}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:36.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:36.000Z","searchable_text":"Fernandes{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected as one of the 2019 “Top 10 Central Texas Super Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Austin Black Business Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected as a “Best Lawyer for Commercial Litigation” and “Litigation – Environmental” in Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2012 – 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by The National Law Journal in its feature “Winning” ranking that profiles that nation’s top 10 litigators \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2004\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The National Law Journal, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation's largest specialty chemical companies in a six-week trade secret jury trial against a competitor resulting in a $152 million jury verdict for the client. The verdict was identified by The National Law Journal as one of the 10 largest verdicts in the U.S. in 2006.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major U.S. Bank in a $400 million fraud case brought by a Mexican pharmaceutical company resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client after a multi-week jury trial and awarding the client $2 million in attorneys' fees.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major manufacturer in a $270 million antitrust lawsuit resulting in a directed verdict for the client after seven weeks of trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major venture capital firm in a $300 million breach of contract case by a Spanish language television station resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a river authority in a federal bench trial defending claims that water diversions caused the death of whooping cranes in violation of the Endangered Species Act. After the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the 5th Circuit reversed and rendered, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause and foreseeability as a matter of law. Law360 named the case one of the top five environmental cases of the year.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major U.S. bank in a four-week trial successfully defending an action by the FDIC seeking $1.2 billion in damages.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major international software company in connection with a $1.3 billion patent infringement and trade secret dispute.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation's largest accounting firms in connection with a $500 million negligence/malpractice lawsuit.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation's largest utility companies in the defense of a $200 million class action.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major law firm in an $80 million class action involving claims of aiding and abetting securities violations.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation's largest medical devices manufacturers in connection with a $1 billion patent infringement and trade secrets case.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation's largest banks in a suit by 54 foreign investors alleging fraud and aiding and abetting securities violations and seeking more than $27 million.{{ FIELD }}Represented a bankruptcy trustee in a highly publicized bankruptcy case involving one of the nation's largest mortgage fraud cases.{{ FIELD }}Represented an international telecommunications provider in a $15 million fraud claim.{{ FIELD }}Ed is an experienced trial lawyer and is a partner in our Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice and is located in the firm’s Austin office. He has been recognized nationally for representing clients in a range of litigation issues, including complex business litigation, energy disputes, professional liability, securities litigation, patent litigation and trade secrets. Ed has experience trying high-stakes cases in both state and federal courts throughout the United States.\nHis representation of clients has awarded him several national and local distinctions from leading publications like The National Law Journal, The Best Lawyers in America, and Austin Black Business Journal. Partner Selected as one of the 2019 “Top 10 Central Texas Super Lawyers” Austin Black Business Journal Selected as a “Best Lawyer for Commercial Litigation” and “Litigation – Environmental” in Texas The Best Lawyers in America, 2012 – 2019 Recognized by The National Law Journal in its feature “Winning” ranking that profiles that nation’s top 10 litigators  2004 Recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America” The National Law Journal, 2008 Dartmouth College  Columbia University Columbia University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts 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 District of Colorado Massachusetts Texas Member, American Board of Trial Advocates, 2016 – Present Volunteer Legal Services of Central Texas, Advisory Board, 2012 – Present Director, Texas Appleseed, 2007 – 2016 Chair, Board of Trustees, Texas Bar Foundation, 2010 – 2011 LeadershipSBOT Steering Committee, State Bar of Texas, 2010 – 2011 Director, State Bar of Texas, 2005 – 2008 Director, Houston Bar Association, 1996 – 2000 Advisory Council, Texas A\u0026amp;M Transportation Institute, 2019 - Present Director, Catholic Foundation - Diocese of Austin, 2022 - Present Represented one of the nation's largest specialty chemical companies in a six-week trade secret jury trial against a competitor resulting in a $152 million jury verdict for the client. The verdict was identified by The National Law Journal as one of the 10 largest verdicts in the U.S. in 2006. Represented a major U.S. Bank in a $400 million fraud case brought by a Mexican pharmaceutical company resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client after a multi-week jury trial and awarding the client $2 million in attorneys' fees. Represented a major manufacturer in a $270 million antitrust lawsuit resulting in a directed verdict for the client after seven weeks of trial. Represented a major venture capital firm in a $300 million breach of contract case by a Spanish language television station resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client. Represented a river authority in a federal bench trial defending claims that water diversions caused the death of whooping cranes in violation of the Endangered Species Act. After the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the 5th Circuit reversed and rendered, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause and foreseeability as a matter of law. Law360 named the case one of the top five environmental cases of the year. Represented a major U.S. bank in a four-week trial successfully defending an action by the FDIC seeking $1.2 billion in damages. Represented a major international software company in connection with a $1.3 billion patent infringement and trade secret dispute. Represented one of the nation's largest accounting firms in connection with a $500 million negligence/malpractice lawsuit. Represented one of the nation's largest utility companies in the defense of a $200 million class action. Represented a major law firm in an $80 million class action involving claims of aiding and abetting securities violations. Represented one of the nation's largest medical devices manufacturers in connection with a $1 billion patent infringement and trade secrets case. Represented one of the nation's largest banks in a suit by 54 foreign investors alleging fraud and aiding and abetting securities violations and seeking more than $27 million. Represented a bankruptcy trustee in a highly publicized bankruptcy case involving one of the nation's largest mortgage fraud cases. Represented an international telecommunications provider in a $15 million fraud claim.","searchable_name":"Edward F. Fernandes (Ed)","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":448885,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1060,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJack Fontham focuses on litigation and arbitration of insurance coverage disputes and related contractual indemnity claims. Jack exclusively represents insurance policyholders. Jack advises clients on the form and structure of their insurance programs and the insurance and indemnity provisions in their contracts, and litigates disputes arising in those areas.\u0026nbsp;Jack has helped recover more than $3\u0026nbsp;billion for policyholder clients through prelitigation settlements, trials and arbitrations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJack regularly handles first- and third-party insurance coverage claims for leading companies in the construction, energy, life sciences and consumer products sectors. Jack has a proven track record of securing insurance recoveries for asbestos-related bodily injury claims and other mass tort liabilities, as well as for large business interruption and property damage losses incurred in connection with construction projects and in a variety of other venues. Jack is a Charter Fellow in the Construction Lawyers Society of America.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJack advises public and private companies in connection with analyzing and structuring transactions to isolate legacy liabilities and the subsequent sale of those\u0026nbsp;liabilities and associated insurance portfolios to third parties.\u0026nbsp;Jack also advises clients on their fronting, captive and self-insurance programs, and on the allocation of insurance assets in corporate mergers and acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-fontham","email":"jfontham@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe owner of a several billion dollar LNG construction project\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with claims under a construction all risk/delay in start up policy for property damage and delay-related losses arising out of catastrophic flood events.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe owner of a world-scale methanol production facility\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with claims under a all-risk insurance policy for property damage and business interruption losses arising out of the failure of a waste heat boiler system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe owners of an 898-megawatt coal-fired power plant\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with claims under a construction all-risk/delay-in-start-up policy for losses resulting from severe damage to a boiler during construction of the plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eToyo Engineering\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with claims under a construction all-risk insurance policy for property damage losses arising out damage to a piping system during construction of an ethane cracker plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHaven Midstream\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with claims under an all-risk insurance policy for property damage and business interruption losses arising out of an explosion and fire at a gas plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea professional sports stadium owner\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on insurance coverage matters arising from engineering and design errors in the construction of a new stadium.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial and appellate counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Coca-Cola Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCleaver-Brooks, Inc., et al. v. AIU Ins. Co., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, 351 Wis.2d 643, 839 N.W.2d 882 (Wis. App. 2013),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003erev. denied\u003c/em\u003e, 846 N.W.2d 15 (Wis. 2014), successfully securing a judgment that jointly and severally liable insurers who sold their policies as part of a single block of coverage cannot insist upon prorating their liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims and cannot force the policyholder to choose only one policy to pay at a time.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePneumo Abex LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in insurance coverage litigation against numerous primary and excess general liability insurers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and related arbitration and mediation proceedings seeking coverage for underlying asbestos-related bodily injury claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with insurance coverage matters arising from claims alleging injuries attributable to paraquat and methyl tert-butyl ether.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFortune Global 500 public company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein its sale of all its asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea New York-based hedge fund\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein its acquisition of asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets from a portfolio company of a prominent private equity firm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFortress Investment Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets from Crane Holdings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised an affiliate of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThird Point LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of legacy asbestos liabilities and the related insurance assets held by certain affiliates of Ingersoll Rand Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Fortune 50 company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with various insurance coverage, indemnity and subrogation disputes relating to its use of captive insurance for certain layers of automobile and truckers' liability coverage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Fortune 10 multinational conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the restructuring of its domestic and international property insurance programs and, in particular, the drafting of reinsurance and retrocession agreements for the client\u0026rsquo;s captive insurance company.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":87},{"id":87}]},"expertise":[{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":12,"guid":"12.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1185,"guid":"1185.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fontham","nick_name":"Jack","clerkships":[],"first_name":"John","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"H.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackfontham/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJack Fontham focuses on litigation and arbitration of insurance coverage disputes and related contractual indemnity claims. Jack exclusively represents insurance policyholders. Jack advises clients on the form and structure of their insurance programs and the insurance and indemnity provisions in their contracts, and litigates disputes arising in those areas.\u0026nbsp;Jack has helped recover more than $3\u0026nbsp;billion for policyholder clients through prelitigation settlements, trials and arbitrations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJack regularly handles first- and third-party insurance coverage claims for leading companies in the construction, energy, life sciences and consumer products sectors. Jack has a proven track record of securing insurance recoveries for asbestos-related bodily injury claims and other mass tort liabilities, as well as for large business interruption and property damage losses incurred in connection with construction projects and in a variety of other venues. Jack is a Charter Fellow in the Construction Lawyers Society of America.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJack advises public and private companies in connection with analyzing and structuring transactions to isolate legacy liabilities and the subsequent sale of those\u0026nbsp;liabilities and associated insurance portfolios to third parties.\u0026nbsp;Jack also advises clients on their fronting, captive and self-insurance programs, and on the allocation of insurance assets in corporate mergers and acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe owner of a several billion dollar LNG construction project\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with claims under a construction all risk/delay in start up policy for property damage and delay-related losses arising out of catastrophic flood events.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe owner of a world-scale methanol production facility\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with claims under a all-risk insurance policy for property damage and business interruption losses arising out of the failure of a waste heat boiler system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe owners of an 898-megawatt coal-fired power plant\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with claims under a construction all-risk/delay-in-start-up policy for losses resulting from severe damage to a boiler during construction of the plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eToyo Engineering\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with claims under a construction all-risk insurance policy for property damage losses arising out damage to a piping system during construction of an ethane cracker plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHaven Midstream\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with claims under an all-risk insurance policy for property damage and business interruption losses arising out of an explosion and fire at a gas plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea professional sports stadium owner\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on insurance coverage matters arising from engineering and design errors in the construction of a new stadium.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial and appellate counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Coca-Cola Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCleaver-Brooks, Inc., et al. v. AIU Ins. Co., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, 351 Wis.2d 643, 839 N.W.2d 882 (Wis. App. 2013),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003erev. denied\u003c/em\u003e, 846 N.W.2d 15 (Wis. 2014), successfully securing a judgment that jointly and severally liable insurers who sold their policies as part of a single block of coverage cannot insist upon prorating their liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims and cannot force the policyholder to choose only one policy to pay at a time.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePneumo Abex LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in insurance coverage litigation against numerous primary and excess general liability insurers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and related arbitration and mediation proceedings seeking coverage for underlying asbestos-related bodily injury claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with insurance coverage matters arising from claims alleging injuries attributable to paraquat and methyl tert-butyl ether.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFortune Global 500 public company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein its sale of all its asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea New York-based hedge fund\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein its acquisition of asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets from a portfolio company of a prominent private equity firm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFortress Investment Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets from Crane Holdings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised an affiliate of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThird Point LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of legacy asbestos liabilities and the related insurance assets held by certain affiliates of Ingersoll Rand Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Fortune 50 company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with various insurance coverage, indemnity and subrogation disputes relating to its use of captive insurance for certain layers of automobile and truckers' liability coverage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Fortune 10 multinational conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the restructuring of its domestic and international property insurance programs and, in particular, the drafting of reinsurance and retrocession agreements for the client\u0026rsquo;s captive insurance company.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12329}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:17.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:17.000Z","searchable_text":"Fontham{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner of a several billion dollar LNG construction project in connection with claims under a construction all risk/delay in start up policy for property damage and delay-related losses arising out of catastrophic flood events.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner of a world-scale methanol production facility in connection with claims under a all-risk insurance policy for property damage and business interruption losses arising out of the failure of a waste heat boiler system.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owners of an 898-megawatt coal-fired power plant in connection with claims under a construction all-risk/delay-in-start-up policy for losses resulting from severe damage to a boiler during construction of the plant.{{ FIELD }}Represented Toyo Engineering in connection with claims under a construction all-risk insurance policy for property damage losses arising out damage to a piping system during construction of an ethane cracker plant.{{ FIELD }}Represented Haven Midstream in connection with claims under an all-risk insurance policy for property damage and business interruption losses arising out of an explosion and fire at a gas plant.{{ FIELD }}Represented a professional sports stadium owner on insurance coverage matters arising from engineering and design errors in the construction of a new stadium.{{ FIELD }}Served as trial and appellate counsel for The Coca-Cola Company in Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., et al. v. AIU Ins. Co., et al., 351 Wis.2d 643, 839 N.W.2d 882 (Wis. App. 2013), rev. denied, 846 N.W.2d 15 (Wis. 2014), successfully securing a judgment that jointly and severally liable insurers who sold their policies as part of a single block of coverage cannot insist upon prorating their liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims and cannot force the policyholder to choose only one policy to pay at a time.{{ FIELD }}Represented Pneumo Abex LLC in insurance coverage litigation against numerous primary and excess general liability insurers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and related arbitration and mediation proceedings seeking coverage for underlying asbestos-related bodily injury claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing Chevron Corporation in connection with insurance coverage matters arising from claims alleging injuries attributable to paraquat and methyl tert-butyl ether.{{ FIELD }}Advised a Fortune Global 500 public company in its sale of all its asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets in the United States.{{ FIELD }}Advised a New York-based hedge fund in its acquisition of asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets from a portfolio company of a prominent private equity firm.{{ FIELD }}Advised Fortress Investment Group in its acquisition of asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets from Crane Holdings.{{ FIELD }}Advised an affiliate of Third Point LLC in its acquisition of legacy asbestos liabilities and the related insurance assets held by certain affiliates of Ingersoll Rand Inc.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Fortune 50 company in connection with various insurance coverage, indemnity and subrogation disputes relating to its use of captive insurance for certain layers of automobile and truckers' liability coverage.{{ FIELD }}Advised a Fortune 10 multinational conglomerate on the restructuring of its domestic and international property insurance programs and, in particular, the drafting of reinsurance and retrocession agreements for the client’s captive insurance company.{{ FIELD }}Jack Fontham focuses on litigation and arbitration of insurance coverage disputes and related contractual indemnity claims. Jack exclusively represents insurance policyholders. Jack advises clients on the form and structure of their insurance programs and the insurance and indemnity provisions in their contracts, and litigates disputes arising in those areas. Jack has helped recover more than $3 billion for policyholder clients through prelitigation settlements, trials and arbitrations.\nJack regularly handles first- and third-party insurance coverage claims for leading companies in the construction, energy, life sciences and consumer products sectors. Jack has a proven track record of securing insurance recoveries for asbestos-related bodily injury claims and other mass tort liabilities, as well as for large business interruption and property damage losses incurred in connection with construction projects and in a variety of other venues. Jack is a Charter Fellow in the Construction Lawyers Society of America.\nJack advises public and private companies in connection with analyzing and structuring transactions to isolate legacy liabilities and the subsequent sale of those liabilities and associated insurance portfolios to third parties. Jack also advises clients on their fronting, captive and self-insurance programs, and on the allocation of insurance assets in corporate mergers and acquisitions. John H Fontham Partner University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana District of Columbia Louisiana District of Columbia Bar Louisiana State Bar Association American Bar Association (sections: Litigation, Tort \u0026amp; Insurance Practice) Represented the owner of a several billion dollar LNG construction project in connection with claims under a construction all risk/delay in start up policy for property damage and delay-related losses arising out of catastrophic flood events. Represented the owner of a world-scale methanol production facility in connection with claims under a all-risk insurance policy for property damage and business interruption losses arising out of the failure of a waste heat boiler system. Represented the owners of an 898-megawatt coal-fired power plant in connection with claims under a construction all-risk/delay-in-start-up policy for losses resulting from severe damage to a boiler during construction of the plant. Represented Toyo Engineering in connection with claims under a construction all-risk insurance policy for property damage losses arising out damage to a piping system during construction of an ethane cracker plant. Represented Haven Midstream in connection with claims under an all-risk insurance policy for property damage and business interruption losses arising out of an explosion and fire at a gas plant. Represented a professional sports stadium owner on insurance coverage matters arising from engineering and design errors in the construction of a new stadium. Served as trial and appellate counsel for The Coca-Cola Company in Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., et al. v. AIU Ins. Co., et al., 351 Wis.2d 643, 839 N.W.2d 882 (Wis. App. 2013), rev. denied, 846 N.W.2d 15 (Wis. 2014), successfully securing a judgment that jointly and severally liable insurers who sold their policies as part of a single block of coverage cannot insist upon prorating their liability for asbestos-related bodily injury claims and cannot force the policyholder to choose only one policy to pay at a time. Represented Pneumo Abex LLC in insurance coverage litigation against numerous primary and excess general liability insurers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and related arbitration and mediation proceedings seeking coverage for underlying asbestos-related bodily injury claims. Representing Chevron Corporation in connection with insurance coverage matters arising from claims alleging injuries attributable to paraquat and methyl tert-butyl ether. Advised a Fortune Global 500 public company in its sale of all its asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets in the United States. Advised a New York-based hedge fund in its acquisition of asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets from a portfolio company of a prominent private equity firm. Advised Fortress Investment Group in its acquisition of asbestos liabilities and related insurance assets from Crane Holdings. Advised an affiliate of Third Point LLC in its acquisition of legacy asbestos liabilities and the related insurance assets held by certain affiliates of Ingersoll Rand Inc. Represented a Fortune 50 company in connection with various insurance coverage, indemnity and subrogation disputes relating to its use of captive insurance for certain layers of automobile and truckers' liability coverage. Advised a Fortune 10 multinational conglomerate on the restructuring of its domestic and international property insurance programs and, in particular, the drafting of reinsurance and retrocession agreements for the client’s captive insurance company.","searchable_name":"John H. Fontham (Jack)","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":438915,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3933,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKen is a business-oriented litigator who represents clients in M\u0026amp;A, contract, and securities disputes.\u0026nbsp; Ken\u0026nbsp;advises clients in a variety\u0026nbsp;of industries, including financial services, real estate, technology, telecommunications, transportation, and healthcare.\u0026nbsp; Ken has helped clients navigate deal litigation, private and SEC\u0026nbsp;securities actions,\u0026nbsp;disputes with joint venture partners, syndicated loan defaults, and other commercial contract disputes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen is active in the community and with pro bono work.\u0026nbsp; Among other things, he served for three years as a member of Legal Services NYC's Pro Bono Associate Advisory Board, and he counseled a local nonprofit through incorporation and its first several years of existence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to law school, Ken was an elementary school special education teacher. While an undergraduate at the University of Notre Dame, Ken\u0026nbsp;interned as a sports reporter for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Times\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and as a news reporter for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSouth Bend Tribune\u003c/em\u003e. He graduated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;from Notre Dame with a B.A. in political science, and he graduated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;from Duke Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClerkships\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaw Clerk, The Honorable Frank M. Hull, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"kenneth-fowler","email":"kfowler@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1185,"guid":"1185.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":27,"guid":"27.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":12,"guid":"12.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fowler","nick_name":"Ken","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Frank M. Hull, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"2014-2015"}],"first_name":"Kenneth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":613,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna 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":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKen is a business-oriented litigator who represents clients in M\u0026amp;A, contract, and securities disputes.\u0026nbsp; Ken\u0026nbsp;advises clients in a variety\u0026nbsp;of industries, including financial services, real estate, technology, telecommunications, transportation, and healthcare.\u0026nbsp; Ken has helped clients navigate deal litigation, private and SEC\u0026nbsp;securities actions,\u0026nbsp;disputes with joint venture partners, syndicated loan defaults, and other commercial contract disputes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen is active in the community and with pro bono work.\u0026nbsp; Among other things, he served for three years as a member of Legal Services NYC's Pro Bono Associate Advisory Board, and he counseled a local nonprofit through incorporation and its first several years of existence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to law school, Ken was an elementary school special education teacher. While an undergraduate at the University of Notre Dame, Ken\u0026nbsp;interned as a sports reporter for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Times\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and as a news reporter for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSouth Bend Tribune\u003c/em\u003e. He graduated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;from Notre Dame with a B.A. in political science, and he graduated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;from Duke Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClerkships\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaw Clerk, The Honorable Frank M. Hull, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4214}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-10-01T20:55:48.000Z","updated_at":"2025-10-01T20:55:48.000Z","searchable_text":"Fowler{{ FIELD }}Ken is a business-oriented litigator who represents clients in M\u0026amp;A, contract, and securities disputes.  Ken advises clients in a variety of industries, including financial services, real estate, technology, telecommunications, transportation, and healthcare.  Ken has helped clients navigate deal litigation, private and SEC securities actions, disputes with joint venture partners, syndicated loan defaults, and other commercial contract disputes.  \nKen is active in the community and with pro bono work.  Among other things, he served for three years as a member of Legal Services NYC's Pro Bono Associate Advisory Board, and he counseled a local nonprofit through incorporation and its first several years of existence.\nPrior to law school, Ken was an elementary school special education teacher. While an undergraduate at the University of Notre Dame, Ken interned as a sports reporter for the Los Angeles Times and as a news reporter for the South Bend Tribune. He graduated magna cum laude from Notre Dame with a B.A. in political science, and he graduated magna cum laude from Duke Law.\nClerkships\n\nLaw Clerk, The Honorable Frank M. Hull, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit\n Partner University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law School Duke University Duke University School of Law Georgia New York Law Clerk, Frank M. Hull, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","searchable_name":"Kenneth Fowler (Ken)","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":448884,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1068,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHarold Franklin, a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes Practice, specializes in defending corporations in complex and high-stakes product liability litigation. A member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationally ranked Automotive and Transportation Pharmaceutical/Medical Device teams, Harold\u0026rsquo;s national litigation and trial practice focuses heavily on high stakes individual and mass tort (MDL and Class-Actions) product liability litigation in the automotive, life sciences, and consumer products industries.\u0026nbsp; His practice has also included high-exposure business disputes and internal investigations. Harold has represented many of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest corporations in complex \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation and trials.\u0026nbsp; Harold is recognized nationally for his profile as a litigator and is a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC), comprised of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading product manufacturers and the top product liability defense counsel.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis six most recent trials include a high-profile federal court automotive product liability trial, which was selected and featured in 2014 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; award publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has also served as in-house counsel (through secondment) for a global product manufacturer, where he was responsible for selecting and retaining outside counsel and managing complex product liability litigation throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; More recently, Harold was selected by one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automotive manufacturers to serve as one of its national written discovery counsel and also as trial counsel (along with three other trial counsel with other law firms) of a high-profile bellwether automotive product liability case.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold is a 1990 graduate of Emory University, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and Spanish. Prior to entering the legal profession, he served as vice president of an insurance brokerage firm specializing in group benefit plans for many of the nation\u0026rsquo;s leading insurance companies. Harold received his Juris Doctor from the Georgia State University School of Law in 1999. During law school, he served as a Student Judicial Clerk to the Supreme Court of Georgia.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, Harold received numerous awards in local, regional, and national trial and appellate competitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized civic leader, Harold has engaged heavily in and led pro bono and community service endeavors in both the legal profession and broader community throughout his career and he has served on numerous national and local boards. Harold is a past president of the Gate City Bar Association, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s oldest historically African-American bar association, and more recently served as president of Atlanta Bar Association, the largest voluntary bar association in the Southeast United States.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith almost two decades of extensive involvement in lawyer professional development, Harold is a key leader in the firm\u0026rsquo;s professional development programs and its focus on inclusion and retention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has served as a key leader nationally and locally in non-partisan voting rights work, He serves as Board Chair for the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and recently completed his term as Board Chair for the Truancy Intervention Project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2009, Harold was selected by the Georgia United States Congressional Delegation to serve on a 13 member Federal Judicial Advisory panel to the delegation regarding Presidential appointments to selected judgeships on the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals in Georgia.\u0026nbsp; Harold was recently nominated and appointed by the federal judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to a three-year term on the Court\u0026rsquo;s 15 member Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has lectured locally and nationally on both legal and pro bono related topics ranging from evidentiary issues involving product liability law, to deposition strategy/best practices, to Voting Rights and Non-Partisan Election Protection initiatives, to Ethics in the legal profession. Keynote speaking engagements include: 2008 Bench and Bar Keynote Speaker at the Georgia State University College of Law; 2009 Election Protection Keynote Speaker at 25th Anniversary of the World Conference of Mayors; and 2009 Law Day Keynote Speaker (A Legacy of Liberty - Celebrating Lincoln\u0026rsquo;s Bicentennial) at the Georgia State University College of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold was selected by his peers in 2023 for inclusion in the 30th edition of \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026reg; for his expertise in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants.\u0026nbsp; Harold also has been named as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Super Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e (2008-present) by Law \u0026amp; Politics and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, as a \u003cem\u003eLegal Elite\u003c/em\u003e by \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trend Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, recognized by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e in 2007 as \u003cem\u003e1 of the Top 15 Lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40\u003c/em\u003e, and in 2016 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Attorney of the Year Finalist\u003c/em\u003e and he has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eUSA\u003c/em\u003e (Mass Tort Defense) for his national profile as a litigator and leading practitioner in his field and by the Atlanta Business Chronicle for his leadership in the profession.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Harold has been recognized consistently (2018 \u0026ndash; present) by \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e as a leading practitioner in his field.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, Harold was honored by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e with its \u003cem\u003eProfessional Excellence Award\u003c/em\u003e and was also honored as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trailblazer\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"harold-franklin","email":"hfranklin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; product liability litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s 2010 list of \u0026ldquo;Hellhole Jurisdictions.\u0026rdquo; Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":0,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.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":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Franklin","nick_name":"Harold","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Harold","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present","detail":"Benchmark"},{"title":"Recognized for his national profile as a litigator","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Georgia Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2008-Present"},{"title":"Recognized as Legal Elite","detail":"Georgia Trend, 2006"},{"title":"2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide)","detail":"Daily Report"},{"title":"Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story ","detail":"Fulton Daily Report, 2007"},{"title":"Commitment to Equality Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2012"},{"title":"Justice Benham Community Service Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2016"},{"title":"Presidential Award","detail":"National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012"},{"title":"Ranked as a \"Rising Star\"","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007"},{"title":"Outstanding Lawyer Award ","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2012"},{"title":"Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award","detail":"Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016"},{"title":"Men of Influence Award","detail":"Atlanta Business League, 2015"},{"title":"Service Award for leadership \u0026 service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2009"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHarold Franklin, a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes Practice, specializes in defending corporations in complex and high-stakes product liability litigation. A member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationally ranked Automotive and Transportation Pharmaceutical/Medical Device teams, Harold\u0026rsquo;s national litigation and trial practice focuses heavily on high stakes individual and mass tort (MDL and Class-Actions) product liability litigation in the automotive, life sciences, and consumer products industries.\u0026nbsp; His practice has also included high-exposure business disputes and internal investigations. Harold has represented many of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest corporations in complex \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation and trials.\u0026nbsp; Harold is recognized nationally for his profile as a litigator and is a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC), comprised of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading product manufacturers and the top product liability defense counsel.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis six most recent trials include a high-profile federal court automotive product liability trial, which was selected and featured in 2014 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; award publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has also served as in-house counsel (through secondment) for a global product manufacturer, where he was responsible for selecting and retaining outside counsel and managing complex product liability litigation throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; More recently, Harold was selected by one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automotive manufacturers to serve as one of its national written discovery counsel and also as trial counsel (along with three other trial counsel with other law firms) of a high-profile bellwether automotive product liability case.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold is a 1990 graduate of Emory University, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and Spanish. Prior to entering the legal profession, he served as vice president of an insurance brokerage firm specializing in group benefit plans for many of the nation\u0026rsquo;s leading insurance companies. Harold received his Juris Doctor from the Georgia State University School of Law in 1999. During law school, he served as a Student Judicial Clerk to the Supreme Court of Georgia.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, Harold received numerous awards in local, regional, and national trial and appellate competitions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized civic leader, Harold has engaged heavily in and led pro bono and community service endeavors in both the legal profession and broader community throughout his career and he has served on numerous national and local boards. Harold is a past president of the Gate City Bar Association, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s oldest historically African-American bar association, and more recently served as president of Atlanta Bar Association, the largest voluntary bar association in the Southeast United States.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith almost two decades of extensive involvement in lawyer professional development, Harold is a key leader in the firm\u0026rsquo;s professional development programs and its focus on inclusion and retention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has served as a key leader nationally and locally in non-partisan voting rights work, He serves as Board Chair for the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and recently completed his term as Board Chair for the Truancy Intervention Project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2009, Harold was selected by the Georgia United States Congressional Delegation to serve on a 13 member Federal Judicial Advisory panel to the delegation regarding Presidential appointments to selected judgeships on the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals in Georgia.\u0026nbsp; Harold was recently nominated and appointed by the federal judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to a three-year term on the Court\u0026rsquo;s 15 member Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold has lectured locally and nationally on both legal and pro bono related topics ranging from evidentiary issues involving product liability law, to deposition strategy/best practices, to Voting Rights and Non-Partisan Election Protection initiatives, to Ethics in the legal profession. Keynote speaking engagements include: 2008 Bench and Bar Keynote Speaker at the Georgia State University College of Law; 2009 Election Protection Keynote Speaker at 25th Anniversary of the World Conference of Mayors; and 2009 Law Day Keynote Speaker (A Legacy of Liberty - Celebrating Lincoln\u0026rsquo;s Bicentennial) at the Georgia State University College of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarold was selected by his peers in 2023 for inclusion in the 30th edition of \u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u0026reg; for his expertise in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants.\u0026nbsp; Harold also has been named as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Super Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e (2008-present) by Law \u0026amp; Politics and \u003cem\u003eAtlanta Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, as a \u003cem\u003eLegal Elite\u003c/em\u003e by \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trend Magazine\u003c/em\u003e, recognized by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e in 2007 as \u003cem\u003e1 of the Top 15 Lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40\u003c/em\u003e, and in 2016 by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Attorney of the Year Finalist\u003c/em\u003e and he has been recognized by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eUSA\u003c/em\u003e (Mass Tort Defense) for his national profile as a litigator and leading practitioner in his field and by the Atlanta Business Chronicle for his leadership in the profession.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Harold has been recognized consistently (2018 \u0026ndash; present) by \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e as a leading practitioner in his field.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, Harold was honored by the \u003cem\u003eDaily Report\u003c/em\u003e with its \u003cem\u003eProfessional Excellence Award\u003c/em\u003e and was also honored as a \u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trailblazer\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; product liability litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s 2010 list of \u0026ldquo;Hellhole Jurisdictions.\u0026rdquo; Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present","detail":"Benchmark"},{"title":"Recognized for his national profile as a litigator","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Georgia Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2008-Present"},{"title":"Recognized as Legal Elite","detail":"Georgia Trend, 2006"},{"title":"2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide)","detail":"Daily Report"},{"title":"Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story ","detail":"Fulton Daily Report, 2007"},{"title":"Commitment to Equality Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2012"},{"title":"Justice Benham Community Service Award","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2016"},{"title":"Presidential Award","detail":"National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012"},{"title":"Ranked as a \"Rising Star\"","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007"},{"title":"Outstanding Lawyer Award ","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2012"},{"title":"Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award","detail":"Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016"},{"title":"Men of Influence Award","detail":"Atlanta Business League, 2015"},{"title":"Service Award for leadership \u0026 service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp","detail":"Gate City Bar Association, 2009"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11788}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:15.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:15.000Z","searchable_text":"Franklin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for his national profile as a litigator\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2008-Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Legal Elite\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Trend, 2006\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Report\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Fulton Daily Report, 2007\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commitment to Equality Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Justice Benham Community Service Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Presidential Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a \\\"Rising Star\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Outstanding Lawyer Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Gate City Bar Association, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Men of Influence Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Business League, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Service Award for leadership \u0026amp; service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Gate City Bar Association, 2009\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment.{{ FIELD }}Served as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments.{{ FIELD }}Served as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world’s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes “bet-the-company” product liability litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure.{{ FIELD }}Deposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions.{{ FIELD }}Worked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America.{{ FIELD }}Represented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world’s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation.{{ FIELD }}Served as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association’s 2010 list of “Hellhole Jurisdictions.” Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.{{ FIELD }}Harold Franklin, a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Trial and Global Disputes Practice, specializes in defending corporations in complex and high-stakes product liability litigation. A member of the firm’s nationally ranked Automotive and Transportation Pharmaceutical/Medical Device teams, Harold’s national litigation and trial practice focuses heavily on high stakes individual and mass tort (MDL and Class-Actions) product liability litigation in the automotive, life sciences, and consumer products industries.  His practice has also included high-exposure business disputes and internal investigations. Harold has represented many of the world’s largest corporations in complex “bet-the-company” litigation and trials.  Harold is recognized nationally for his profile as a litigator and is a member of the Product Liability Advisory Council (PLAC), comprised of the world’s leading product manufacturers and the top product liability defense counsel.\nHis six most recent trials include a high-profile federal court automotive product liability trial, which was selected and featured in 2014 by the Daily Report’s “Litigation Department of the Year” award publication.\nHarold has also served as in-house counsel (through secondment) for a global product manufacturer, where he was responsible for selecting and retaining outside counsel and managing complex product liability litigation throughout the United States.  More recently, Harold was selected by one of the world’s largest automotive manufacturers to serve as one of its national written discovery counsel and also as trial counsel (along with three other trial counsel with other law firms) of a high-profile bellwether automotive product liability case.\nHarold is a 1990 graduate of Emory University, where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics and Spanish. Prior to entering the legal profession, he served as vice president of an insurance brokerage firm specializing in group benefit plans for many of the nation’s leading insurance companies. Harold received his Juris Doctor from the Georgia State University School of Law in 1999. During law school, he served as a Student Judicial Clerk to the Supreme Court of Georgia.  While in law school, Harold received numerous awards in local, regional, and national trial and appellate competitions.\nA recognized civic leader, Harold has engaged heavily in and led pro bono and community service endeavors in both the legal profession and broader community throughout his career and he has served on numerous national and local boards. Harold is a past president of the Gate City Bar Association, Georgia’s oldest historically African-American bar association, and more recently served as president of Atlanta Bar Association, the largest voluntary bar association in the Southeast United States.\nWith almost two decades of extensive involvement in lawyer professional development, Harold is a key leader in the firm’s professional development programs and its focus on inclusion and retention.\nHarold has served as a key leader nationally and locally in non-partisan voting rights work, He serves as Board Chair for the Georgia Appleseed Center for Law and Justice and recently completed his term as Board Chair for the Truancy Intervention Project.\nIn 2009, Harold was selected by the Georgia United States Congressional Delegation to serve on a 13 member Federal Judicial Advisory panel to the delegation regarding Presidential appointments to selected judgeships on the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals in Georgia.  Harold was recently nominated and appointed by the federal judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to a three-year term on the Court’s 15 member Federal Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel.\nHarold has lectured locally and nationally on both legal and pro bono related topics ranging from evidentiary issues involving product liability law, to deposition strategy/best practices, to Voting Rights and Non-Partisan Election Protection initiatives, to Ethics in the legal profession. Keynote speaking engagements include: 2008 Bench and Bar Keynote Speaker at the Georgia State University College of Law; 2009 Election Protection Keynote Speaker at 25th Anniversary of the World Conference of Mayors; and 2009 Law Day Keynote Speaker (A Legacy of Liberty - Celebrating Lincoln’s Bicentennial) at the Georgia State University College of Law.\nHarold was selected by his peers in 2023 for inclusion in the 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for his expertise in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants.  Harold also has been named as a Georgia Super Lawyer (2008-present) by Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta Magazine, as a Legal Elite by Georgia Trend Magazine, recognized by the Daily Report in 2007 as 1 of the Top 15 Lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40, and in 2016 by the Daily Report as a Georgia Attorney of the Year Finalist and he has been recognized by Legal 500 USA (Mass Tort Defense) for his national profile as a litigator and leading practitioner in his field and by the Atlanta Business Chronicle for his leadership in the profession.  In addition, Harold has been recognized consistently (2018 – present) by Best Lawyers in America as a leading practitioner in his field.  In 2020, Harold was honored by the Daily Report with its Professional Excellence Award and was also honored as a Georgia Trailblazer. Partner Best Lawyers in America 2017 - Present Benchmark Recognized for his national profile as a litigator Legal 500 Georgia Super Lawyer Super Lawyers, 2008-Present Recognized as Legal Elite Georgia Trend, 2006 2016 Attorney of the Year Finalist (1 of 5 lawyers statewide) Daily Report Ranked as one of the top 15 lawyers in Georgia under the age of 40 and featured in a cover story  Fulton Daily Report, 2007 Commitment to Equality Award State Bar of Georgia, 2012 Justice Benham Community Service Award State Bar of Georgia, 2016 Presidential Award National Bar Association, 2007-2009, and 2012 Ranked as a \"Rising Star\" Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta Magazine, 2006-2007 Outstanding Lawyer Award  Gate City Bar Association, 2012 Man of the Year Award and Law and Justice Award Men Looking Ahead Magazine, 2016 Men of Influence Award Atlanta Business League, 2015 Service Award for leadership \u0026amp; service in founding the Justice Benham Law Camp Gate City Bar Association, 2009 Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia State University Georgia State University College of Law U.S. District Court for the Middle 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 Served as trial counsel in four high-stakes product liability cases, three of which resulted in complete defense verdicts and the fourth in a zero dollar judgment. Served as trial counsel in high-profile automotive product liability case in federal court and obtained favorable settlement on the eve of closing arguments. Served as one of two national written discovery counsel for one of the world’s largest automobile manufacturers in high stakes “bet-the-company” product liability litigation. Represented global automobile manufacturers in high stakes product liability personal injury litigation. Led and supervised defense of automobile manufacturers in cases (individual and consolidated actions) involving the designs of air bags, roofs, seat belts, steering, brakes, throttle control systems, and overall vehicle structure. Deposing fact and expert witnesses in complex product liability actions across the country and arguing evidentiary, substantive, procedural motions, dispositive and pre-trial motions. Worked from abroad by playing active role in time sensitive and highly complex corporate internal investigation (in Spanish) of European energy company after it restated its oil and gas reserves. Provided analysis of numerous corporate governance issues. Represented global beverage company by conducting review and analysis of trial and appellate court records (in Spanish) involving licensing agreement dispute between various distributors and sub-licensees in South America. Represented global manufacturer in depositions (in Spanish) in complex product liability action. Prepared analysis of deposition proceedings, directed negotiations and secured global settlement. Served as lead counsel in providing advice and counsel to one of the world’s largest manufacturers by conducting comprehensive review and analysis of document retention policies and associated records retention schedules and providing recommendation regarding policy implementation throughout engineering and manufacturing functions within the corporation. Served as member of King \u0026amp; Spalding team that served as national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving antidepressant medication, including in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Mass Tort Program, ranked number one in the American Tort Reform Association’s 2010 list of “Hellhole Jurisdictions.” Led and managed numerous case teams in all aspects of fact and expert discovery, including the depositions of fact witnesses, medical doctors, and expert witness preparation. Served as lead counsel for public sector investigative body in contentious and high profile ethics investigation.","searchable_name":"Harold E. Franklin, Jr.","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":448932,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1848,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmy Frey focuses on all types of cross-border disputes, including investment treaty and commercial arbitration, as well as public international law and human rights law. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Amy\u0026rsquo;s experience ranges from representing corporates and investors from all over the world with claims against foreign states arising from bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty to contract and licensing disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmy counsels clients in arbitration under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the International Chamber of Commerce, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and the UN Commission on International Trade Law. She also advises clients on foreign investment structuring and planning, on domestic litigation proceedings involving challenges to and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and on EU disputes involving state aid and intra-EU arbitration. She has represented clients in claims against Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Italy, Kazakhstan, Romania, Spain and Venezuela. Amy is also experienced in handling requests for interim, injunctive relief and in ICSID annulment proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent matters have concerned complex tax and tariff disputes, including the application of customs duties on imports, changes to corporate income tax regimes, taxes on the export of oil and gas, transport pricing, and so-called \u0026ldquo;windfall profits\u0026rdquo; taxes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Amy takes on public interest law and pro bono projects, particularly involving human rights law, with matters covering domestic violence, child abuse, asylum, juvenile delinquent status and human trafficking. She has long been committed to seeking justice and assistance for refugees.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"amy-frey","email":"afrey@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMoldovan nationals and their corporate entities\u003c/strong\u003e in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute against Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSwedish nationals and their food and beverage companies\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICSID arbitration against an Eastern European state for breach of a BIT, which included challenges to European Union law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e against Ecuador in a treaty dispute involving purported windfall profits taxes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented more than a dozen \u003cstrong\u003eEuropean-based renewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e with claims under the Energy Charter Treaty in disputes against Bulgaria, Italy and Spain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch company\u003c/strong\u003e in a BIT dispute against Algeria regarding unilateral modifications to agreed tax provisions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea water concessionaire\u003c/strong\u003e in ICSID annulment proceedings in which Argentina challenged the award rendered in our client's favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended \u003cstrong\u003eLuxembourg and French renewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e from ICSID annulment proceedings initiated by Spain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a South American state involving denial of justice by the local court system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador for the unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil and gas contract, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eUAE investors\u003c/strong\u003e in bilateral investment treaty disputes involving land development contracts and licenses against the Arab Republic of Egypt, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. gas compression company\u003c/strong\u003e in a bilateral investment treaty dispute against Venezuela in relation to unilateral amendments to a contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Indian company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC arbitration proceeding involving intellectual property disputes and breaches of licensing agreements in China, India and worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean African telecom company\u003c/strong\u003e in relation to attempts of a state to expropriate and/or dissolve its operations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003erenewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e on potential Energy Charter Treaty disputes against Romania and Portugal.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Frey","nick_name":"Amy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Amy","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmy Frey focuses on all types of cross-border disputes, including investment treaty and commercial arbitration, as well as public international law and human rights law. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Amy\u0026rsquo;s experience ranges from representing corporates and investors from all over the world with claims against foreign states arising from bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty to contract and licensing disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmy counsels clients in arbitration under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the International Chamber of Commerce, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and the UN Commission on International Trade Law. She also advises clients on foreign investment structuring and planning, on domestic litigation proceedings involving challenges to and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and on EU disputes involving state aid and intra-EU arbitration. She has represented clients in claims against Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Italy, Kazakhstan, Romania, Spain and Venezuela. Amy is also experienced in handling requests for interim, injunctive relief and in ICSID annulment proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent matters have concerned complex tax and tariff disputes, including the application of customs duties on imports, changes to corporate income tax regimes, taxes on the export of oil and gas, transport pricing, and so-called \u0026ldquo;windfall profits\u0026rdquo; taxes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Amy takes on public interest law and pro bono projects, particularly involving human rights law, with matters covering domestic violence, child abuse, asylum, juvenile delinquent status and human trafficking. She has long been committed to seeking justice and assistance for refugees.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMoldovan nationals and their corporate entities\u003c/strong\u003e in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute against Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSwedish nationals and their food and beverage companies\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICSID arbitration against an Eastern European state for breach of a BIT, which included challenges to European Union law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e against Ecuador in a treaty dispute involving purported windfall profits taxes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented more than a dozen \u003cstrong\u003eEuropean-based renewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e with claims under the Energy Charter Treaty in disputes against Bulgaria, Italy and Spain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch company\u003c/strong\u003e in a BIT dispute against Algeria regarding unilateral modifications to agreed tax provisions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea water concessionaire\u003c/strong\u003e in ICSID annulment proceedings in which Argentina challenged the award rendered in our client's favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended \u003cstrong\u003eLuxembourg and French renewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e from ICSID annulment proceedings initiated by Spain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a South American state involving denial of justice by the local court system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador for the unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil and gas contract, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eUAE investors\u003c/strong\u003e in bilateral investment treaty disputes involving land development contracts and licenses against the Arab Republic of Egypt, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. gas compression company\u003c/strong\u003e in a bilateral investment treaty dispute against Venezuela in relation to unilateral amendments to a contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Indian company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC arbitration proceeding involving intellectual property disputes and breaches of licensing agreements in China, India and worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean African telecom company\u003c/strong\u003e in relation to attempts of a state to expropriate and/or dissolve its operations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003erenewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e on potential Energy Charter Treaty disputes against Romania and Portugal.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12238}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:10:53.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:10:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Frey{{ FIELD }}Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of Moldovan nationals and their corporate entities in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute against Kazakhstan.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of Swedish nationals and their food and beverage companies in an ICSID arbitration against an Eastern European state for breach of a BIT, which included challenges to European Union law.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of a U.S. energy company against Ecuador in a treaty dispute involving purported windfall profits taxes.{{ FIELD }}Represented more than a dozen European-based renewable energy investors with claims under the Energy Charter Treaty in disputes against Bulgaria, Italy and Spain.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Dutch company in a BIT dispute against Algeria regarding unilateral modifications to agreed tax provisions.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a water concessionaire in ICSID annulment proceedings in which Argentina challenged the award rendered in our client's favor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended Luxembourg and French renewable energy investors from ICSID annulment proceedings initiated by Spain.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major U.S. energy company in a dispute with a South American state involving denial of justice by the local court system.{{ FIELD }}Represented an energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador for the unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil and gas contract, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.{{ FIELD }}Represented UAE investors in bilateral investment treaty disputes involving land development contracts and licenses against the Arab Republic of Egypt, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. gas compression company in a bilateral investment treaty dispute against Venezuela in relation to unilateral amendments to a contract.{{ FIELD }}Represented an Indian company in an ICC arbitration proceeding involving intellectual property disputes and breaches of licensing agreements in China, India and worldwide.{{ FIELD }}Advised an African telecom company in relation to attempts of a state to expropriate and/or dissolve its operations.{{ FIELD }}Advised renewable energy investors on potential Energy Charter Treaty disputes against Romania and Portugal.{{ FIELD }}Amy Frey focuses on all types of cross-border disputes, including investment treaty and commercial arbitration, as well as public international law and human rights law. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Amy’s experience ranges from representing corporates and investors from all over the world with claims against foreign states arising from bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty to contract and licensing disputes.\nAmy counsels clients in arbitration under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the International Chamber of Commerce, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and the UN Commission on International Trade Law. She also advises clients on foreign investment structuring and planning, on domestic litigation proceedings involving challenges to and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and on EU disputes involving state aid and intra-EU arbitration. She has represented clients in claims against Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Italy, Kazakhstan, Romania, Spain and Venezuela. Amy is also experienced in handling requests for interim, injunctive relief and in ICSID annulment proceedings.\nRecent matters have concerned complex tax and tariff disputes, including the application of customs duties on imports, changes to corporate income tax regimes, taxes on the export of oil and gas, transport pricing, and so-called “windfall profits” taxes.\nIn addition, Amy takes on public interest law and pro bono projects, particularly involving human rights law, with matters covering domestic violence, child abuse, asylum, juvenile delinquent status and human trafficking. She has long been committed to seeking justice and assistance for refugees. Partner University of Mississippi University of Mississippi School of Law Tulane University Tulane University Law School Oxford University, UK Oxford University, UK District of Columbia Texas Paris Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of Moldovan nationals and their corporate entities in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute against Kazakhstan. Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of Swedish nationals and their food and beverage companies in an ICSID arbitration against an Eastern European state for breach of a BIT, which included challenges to European Union law. Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of a U.S. energy company against Ecuador in a treaty dispute involving purported windfall profits taxes. Represented more than a dozen European-based renewable energy investors with claims under the Energy Charter Treaty in disputes against Bulgaria, Italy and Spain. Represented a Dutch company in a BIT dispute against Algeria regarding unilateral modifications to agreed tax provisions. Successfully defended a water concessionaire in ICSID annulment proceedings in which Argentina challenged the award rendered in our client's favor. Successfully defended Luxembourg and French renewable energy investors from ICSID annulment proceedings initiated by Spain. Represented a major U.S. energy company in a dispute with a South American state involving denial of justice by the local court system. Represented an energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador for the unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil and gas contract, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims. Represented UAE investors in bilateral investment treaty disputes involving land development contracts and licenses against the Arab Republic of Egypt, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims. Represented a U.S. gas compression company in a bilateral investment treaty dispute against Venezuela in relation to unilateral amendments to a contract. Represented an Indian company in an ICC arbitration proceeding involving intellectual property disputes and breaches of licensing agreements in China, India and worldwide. Advised an African telecom company in relation to attempts of a state to expropriate and/or dissolve its operations. Advised renewable energy investors on potential Energy Charter Treaty disputes against Romania and Portugal.","searchable_name":"Amy Frey","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":448833,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":703,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRob\u0026nbsp;Friedman helps the world's leading companies navigate product-liability risks and challenges.\u0026nbsp; His diverse advisory, litigation and trial practice focuses on the life sciences, manufacturing, consumer products, and technology industries.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob Friedman represents leading companies in high-stakes product liability and mass tort matters, with a focus on cases involving complex science, coordinated national strategy, and trial-ready execution. Clients rely on him for clear judgment, disciplined management of large-scale litigation, and the ability to prepare and defend key company witnesses in matters with significant business impact.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob has spent more than five years helping lead the national defense of Boehringer Ingelheim in the Zantac litigation, one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history. He coordinated a defense effort spanning more than 150,000 claims across federal and state courts, oversaw a team of more than 100 lawyers and professionals, and helped secure a complete Daubert victory in the MDL and nine consecutive defense wins in challenging venues such as Alameda County and Cook County\u0026mdash;without a single adverse verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis practice spans the pharmaceutical, automotive, energy, and emerging technology sectors. He represents Shell Oil Company in multistate environmental mass tort actions brought by State Attorneys General and defends a global manufacturer in PFAS litigation. Rob also advises companies on the evolving intersection of products liability and artificial intelligence, and he will join the faculty of UC Law San Francisco\u0026rsquo;s AI Certificate Program in 2026.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob serves as Associate Talent Partner for his firm\u0026rsquo;s eight-time Law360 \u0026ldquo;Practice Group of the Year\u0026rdquo; Product Liability and Mass Torts group, where he oversees the hiring and development of more than 80 attorneys. A past Mentor Award recipient, he is committed to preparing the next generation of trial lawyers for a rapidly changing litigation landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"robert-friedman","email":"rfriedman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShell Oil Company\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of trial team in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eRader v. GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Friedman","nick_name":"Robert","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Robert","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"B.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide ","detail":"Product Liability 360, 2011"},{"title":"Recognized as a Georgia \"Rising Star\" ","detail":"Law 360, 2010–2013"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertbfriedman/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRob\u0026nbsp;Friedman helps the world's leading companies navigate product-liability risks and challenges.\u0026nbsp; His diverse advisory, litigation and trial practice focuses on the life sciences, manufacturing, consumer products, and technology industries.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob Friedman represents leading companies in high-stakes product liability and mass tort matters, with a focus on cases involving complex science, coordinated national strategy, and trial-ready execution. Clients rely on him for clear judgment, disciplined management of large-scale litigation, and the ability to prepare and defend key company witnesses in matters with significant business impact.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob has spent more than five years helping lead the national defense of Boehringer Ingelheim in the Zantac litigation, one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history. He coordinated a defense effort spanning more than 150,000 claims across federal and state courts, oversaw a team of more than 100 lawyers and professionals, and helped secure a complete Daubert victory in the MDL and nine consecutive defense wins in challenging venues such as Alameda County and Cook County\u0026mdash;without a single adverse verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis practice spans the pharmaceutical, automotive, energy, and emerging technology sectors. He represents Shell Oil Company in multistate environmental mass tort actions brought by State Attorneys General and defends a global manufacturer in PFAS litigation. Rob also advises companies on the evolving intersection of products liability and artificial intelligence, and he will join the faculty of UC Law San Francisco\u0026rsquo;s AI Certificate Program in 2026.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob serves as Associate Talent Partner for his firm\u0026rsquo;s eight-time Law360 \u0026ldquo;Practice Group of the Year\u0026rdquo; Product Liability and Mass Torts group, where he oversees the hiring and development of more than 80 attorneys. A past Mentor Award recipient, he is committed to preparing the next generation of trial lawyers for a rapidly changing litigation landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShell Oil Company\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of trial team in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eRader v. GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide ","detail":"Product Liability 360, 2011"},{"title":"Recognized as a Georgia \"Rising Star\" ","detail":"Law 360, 2010–2013"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13202}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:07:04.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:07:04.000Z","searchable_text":"Friedman{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Product Liability 360, 2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a Georgia \\\"Rising Star\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2010–2013\"}{{ FIELD }}Successfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against Shell Oil Company.{{ FIELD }}Member of trial team in Rader v. GlaxoSmithKline, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Rob Friedman helps the world's leading companies navigate product-liability risks and challenges.  His diverse advisory, litigation and trial practice focuses on the life sciences, manufacturing, consumer products, and technology industries. \nRob Friedman represents leading companies in high-stakes product liability and mass tort matters, with a focus on cases involving complex science, coordinated national strategy, and trial-ready execution. Clients rely on him for clear judgment, disciplined management of large-scale litigation, and the ability to prepare and defend key company witnesses in matters with significant business impact.\nRob has spent more than five years helping lead the national defense of Boehringer Ingelheim in the Zantac litigation, one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history. He coordinated a defense effort spanning more than 150,000 claims across federal and state courts, oversaw a team of more than 100 lawyers and professionals, and helped secure a complete Daubert victory in the MDL and nine consecutive defense wins in challenging venues such as Alameda County and Cook County—without a single adverse verdict.\nHis practice spans the pharmaceutical, automotive, energy, and emerging technology sectors. He represents Shell Oil Company in multistate environmental mass tort actions brought by State Attorneys General and defends a global manufacturer in PFAS litigation. Rob also advises companies on the evolving intersection of products liability and artificial intelligence, and he will join the faculty of UC Law San Francisco’s AI Certificate Program in 2026.\nRob serves as Associate Talent Partner for his firm’s eight-time Law360 “Practice Group of the Year” Product Liability and Mass Torts group, where he oversees the hiring and development of more than 80 attorneys. A past Mentor Award recipient, he is committed to preparing the next generation of trial lawyers for a rapidly changing litigation landscape.\n  Partner Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide  Product Liability 360, 2011 Recognized as a Georgia \"Rising Star\"  Law 360, 2010–2013 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Georgia State Bar of Georgia Successfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against Shell Oil Company. Member of trial team in Rader v. GlaxoSmithKline, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.","searchable_name":"Robert B. Friedman","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":443131,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5124,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.\u0026nbsp; He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.\u0026nbsp; The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs. \u0026nbsp;He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.\u0026nbsp; He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.\u0026nbsp; Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.\u0026nbsp; Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client\u0026rsquo;s patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.\u0026nbsp; He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the \u0026ldquo;386\u0026rdquo; trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom speaks frequently on patent issues.\u0026nbsp; He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.\u0026nbsp; He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,\u0026nbsp; as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u003c/em\u003e since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of\u0026nbsp; The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the \u0026ldquo;Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\u0026rdquo; by the Daily Journal.\u0026nbsp; He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEuro Money\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"thomas-friel","email":"tfriel@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 415 990 7997","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.aofs","index":0,"source":"aofs"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Friel","nick_name":"Tom","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Thomas","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2237,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1977-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":[{"title":"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law","detail":"BEST LAWYERS USA"},{"title":"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California","detail":"Daily Journal"},{"title":"Recognized, IP Star ","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Listed, IP Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property ","detail":"Euromoney"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts","detail":"Euromoney"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.\u0026nbsp; He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.\u0026nbsp; The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs. \u0026nbsp;He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.\u0026nbsp; He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.\u0026nbsp; Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.\u0026nbsp; Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client\u0026rsquo;s patents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.\u0026nbsp; He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the \u0026ldquo;386\u0026rdquo; trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom speaks frequently on patent issues.\u0026nbsp; He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.\u0026nbsp; He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,\u0026nbsp; as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eManaging Intellectual Property\u003c/em\u003e since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of\u0026nbsp; The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the \u0026ldquo;Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\u0026rdquo; by the Daily Journal.\u0026nbsp; He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eEuro Money\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law","detail":"BEST LAWYERS USA"},{"title":"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California","detail":"Daily Journal"},{"title":"Recognized, IP Star ","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Listed, IP Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer","detail":"IAM Patent 1000"},{"title":"Listed, Patent Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property ","detail":"Euromoney"},{"title":"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts","detail":"Euromoney"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5702}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-19T20:04:25.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-19T20:04:25.000Z","searchable_text":"Friel{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BEST LAWYERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, IP Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, IP Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney\"}{{ FIELD }}Tom Friel has 40 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property matters, in particular licensing, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, copyright, contract, indemnity and other complex cases. He has tried many cases in courts across the United States, in the ITC, and in commercial arbitrations, representing companies from all over the world, universities, and inventors.  He has handled hundreds of patent, trade secret, licensing (including licensing audits), and trademark disputes.  The scope of his practice covers a broad range, from technology, electronics, software, gaming, semiconductors (design, fabrication, and packaging), industrial equipment, and transportation to agriculture, life sciences, medical devices, and drugs.  He has represented clients in federal and state court litigations, judicial and private arbitrations, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and mediations.\nTom has extensive experience in semiconductor technologies, early in his career representing American Microsystems based in Santa Clara, California, in patent, trade secret, copyright, mask work, and contract cases.  He spent many years representing Advanced Micro Devices in ongoing battles with Intel over patents, trade secrets, copyrights, masks works, and microcode licenses.  Along the way, he has represented many other semiconductor companies in IP disputes including LSI Logic, Monolithic Power Systems, Qualcomm, NEC, Xilinx, and Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing, as well as companies in related industries such as Camtek and Semitool supplying tools to semiconductor manufacturers, and companies including Siliconware Precision and ASAT supplying services to semiconductor companies. \nTom also has extensive experience in display technologies, representing companies such as LG Display, Innolux, Zenith Electronics, and BenQ.  Tom also led a patent licensing campaign featuring fundamental LCD technologies that resulted in all the major display companies taking licenses to his client’s patents.\nTom has extensive experience in trade secret matters.  He also has extensive experience with copyright matters in the technology industry involving databases, software, and other works. He also has experience with trademark and trade dress matters, for example, invalidating the “386” trademark for microprocessors. He is experienced representing clients in indemnity issues and insurance issues relating to intellectual property, and in contracts matters relating to whether high tech products meet specifications.\nTom speaks frequently on patent issues.  He served on the Advisory Committee for the Berkeley Center for Law \u0026amp; Technology, a research center at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and has spoken at its events.  He has served on the faculty of the Advanced Patent Law Institute,  as well as the annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property \u0026amp; Technology Institute. He has been ranked Chambers USA, Legal 500, Managing Intellectual Property since 2008, is named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property, has been recognized for many years in editions of  The Best Lawyers in America, and is named among the “Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California” by the Daily Journal.  He has been recognized as a leading lawyer in his practice areas by IAM Patent 1000, Super Lawyers, and Euro Money.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Tom was a partner at Cooley LLP where he was a partner and former chair of the intellectual property litigation practice. Partner Listed, Best Lawyers USA 2023 - Litigation: IP, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law BEST LAWYERS USA Listed, Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators in California Daily Journal Recognized, IP Star  Managing Intellectual Property Listed, Patent Litigation Legal 500 Listed, IP Litigation Chambers USA Recognized, Leading Patent Lawyer IAM Patent 1000 Listed, Patent Litigation Best Lawyers in America Recognized, Northern California Super Lawyer Super Lawyers Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Lawyers: Intellectual Property  Euromoney Listed, Guide to Leading U.S. Patent Law Experts Euromoney University of Michigan-Ann Arbor  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School California American Bar Association Santa Clara County Bar Association International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association The Bar Association of San Francisco","searchable_name":"Thomas J. Friel, Jr. (Tom)","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":442818,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5741,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate has a wide-ranging practice, focusing primarily on trade secrets issues, employment litigation, complex civil litigation, and securities litigation. She handles all phases of litigation in state and federal courts across various fields, including employment, contract, real estate, and general business disputes. Jeanne also advises clients regarding employment and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate is a go-to partner on trade secrets issues, including all issues surrounding employee mobility, ranging from drafting enforceable employment agreements, to advising clients as to appropriate on-boarding and off-boarding practices, and ultimately to litigating any disputes that may arise from the termination of an employer/employee relationship. In order to litigate trade secrets, non-competes, and other employee mobility claims, lawyers are often called upon to respond quickly to demand letters and to immediately move to draft and/or defend against requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Jeanne, a journalist before law school, excels at this fast-paced practice.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne served as the editor-in-chief of UNC-Chapel Hill\u0026rsquo;s daily newspaper, \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Tar Heel\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jeanne-fugate","email":"jfugate@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive\u0026rsquo;s employment agreement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company\u0026rsquo;s employees\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness and Securities Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented health care company in founders\u0026rsquo; dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders\u0026rsquo; TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHandled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women\u0026rsquo;s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamily Law\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented client in novel action brought under\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarvin v. Marvin\u003c/em\u003e, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertainment and Intellectual Property\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; marks were entitled only to limited protection\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey\u0026rsquo;s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees and costs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman\u0026rsquo;s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCriminal Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons\u0026mdash;a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi\u0026rsquo;s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cdiv id=\"mySiteMain\" data-name=\"ContentPlaceHolderMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_PageContentSection\" class=\"pageContentSection\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"fixedWidthMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"MSO_ContentTable\" class=\"ms-core-tableNoSpace ms-fillBox\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr id=\"BottomRow\"\u003e\n\u003ctd id=\"BottomCell\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-zone ms-fullWidth\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"MSOZoneCell_WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"s4-wpcell-plain ms-webpartzone-cell ms-webpart-cell-vertical ms-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-chrome ms-webpart-chrome-vertical ms-webpart-chrome-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"ms-WPBody noindex \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8_profileBody\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientsMatters\" class=\"pagePanel\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientMattersText\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"pageFooterSection noindex\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\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":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fugate","nick_name":"Jeanne","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Raymond C. Fisher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"2003 - 2004"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","years_held":"2002 - 2003"}],"first_name":"Jeanne","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":1406,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2001-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the ","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017"},{"title":"Recommended for Trade Secret","detail":"Legal 500 US 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2018, 2019"},{"title":"Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Law360 2024"},{"title":"Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024"},{"title":"Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate has a wide-ranging practice, focusing primarily on trade secrets issues, employment litigation, complex civil litigation, and securities litigation. She handles all phases of litigation in state and federal courts across various fields, including employment, contract, real estate, and general business disputes. Jeanne also advises clients regarding employment and compliance issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne Fugate is a go-to partner on trade secrets issues, including all issues surrounding employee mobility, ranging from drafting enforceable employment agreements, to advising clients as to appropriate on-boarding and off-boarding practices, and ultimately to litigating any disputes that may arise from the termination of an employer/employee relationship. In order to litigate trade secrets, non-competes, and other employee mobility claims, lawyers are often called upon to respond quickly to demand letters and to immediately move to draft and/or defend against requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Jeanne, a journalist before law school, excels at this fast-paced practice.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeanne served as the editor-in-chief of UNC-Chapel Hill\u0026rsquo;s daily newspaper, \u003cem\u003eThe Daily Tar Heel\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive\u0026rsquo;s employment agreement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company\u0026rsquo;s employees\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness and Securities Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented health care company in founders\u0026rsquo; dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders\u0026rsquo; TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHandled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women\u0026rsquo;s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFamily Law\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented client in novel action brought under\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarvin v. Marvin\u003c/em\u003e, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertainment and Intellectual Property\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne\u0026rsquo;s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; marks were entitled only to limited protection\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey\u0026rsquo;s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees and costs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman\u0026rsquo;s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCriminal Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons\u0026mdash;a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi\u0026rsquo;s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cdiv id=\"mySiteMain\" data-name=\"ContentPlaceHolderMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_PageContentSection\" class=\"pageContentSection\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"fixedWidthMain\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"MSO_ContentTable\" class=\"ms-core-tableNoSpace ms-fillBox\"\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr id=\"BottomRow\"\u003e\n\u003ctd id=\"BottomCell\" colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-zone ms-fullWidth\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"MSOZoneCell_WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"s4-wpcell-plain ms-webpartzone-cell ms-webpart-cell-vertical ms-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-webpart-chrome ms-webpart-chrome-vertical ms-webpart-chrome-fullWidth \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"WebPartctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\" class=\"ms-WPBody noindex \"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ctl00_SPWebPartManager1_g_6347bc54_42ef_41e7_b052_45cf0d1581a8_profileBody\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientsMatters\" class=\"pagePanel\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"pnlClientMattersText\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"ms-clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"clear\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"pageFooterSection noindex\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the ","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017"},{"title":"Recommended for Trade Secret","detail":"Legal 500 US 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California","detail":"Daily Journal 2018, 2019"},{"title":"Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Law360 2024"},{"title":"Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024"},{"title":"Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal 2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8078}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:08.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Fugate{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for Trade Secret\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal 2018, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026amp; Entertainment\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\nDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client{{ FIELD }}Defeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client{{ FIELD }}Obtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive’s employment agreement{{ FIELD }}Defeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company’s employees{{ FIELD }}Obtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors{{ FIELD }}Successfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction{{ FIELD }}Defended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement{{ FIELD }}Business and Securities Disputes\nRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing{{ FIELD }}Represented health care company in founders’ dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders’ TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved{{ FIELD }}Represented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage{{ FIELD }}Successfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients{{ FIELD }}Obtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss{{ FIELD }}Handled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme{{ FIELD }}In a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week{{ FIELD }}Employment Matters\nOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women’s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints{{ FIELD }}Represented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne’s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Preserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions{{ FIELD }}Secured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer.{{ FIELD }}Successfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced{{ FIELD }}Represented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident{{ FIELD }}Defended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed{{ FIELD }}Family Law\nRepresented client in novel action brought under Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings{{ FIELD }}Entertainment and Intellectual Property\nObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne’s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs’ marks were entitled only to limited protection{{ FIELD }}Defeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey’s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute{{ FIELD }}Obtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs{{ FIELD }}Achieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro{{ FIELD }}Criminal Matters\nSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons—a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi’s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term{{ FIELD }}\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney’s Office\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n {{ FIELD }}Jeanne Fugate has a wide-ranging practice, focusing primarily on trade secrets issues, employment litigation, complex civil litigation, and securities litigation. She handles all phases of litigation in state and federal courts across various fields, including employment, contract, real estate, and general business disputes. Jeanne also advises clients regarding employment and compliance issues.\nJeanne Fugate is a go-to partner on trade secrets issues, including all issues surrounding employee mobility, ranging from drafting enforceable employment agreements, to advising clients as to appropriate on-boarding and off-boarding practices, and ultimately to litigating any disputes that may arise from the termination of an employer/employee relationship. In order to litigate trade secrets, non-competes, and other employee mobility claims, lawyers are often called upon to respond quickly to demand letters and to immediately move to draft and/or defend against requests for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Jeanne, a journalist before law school, excels at this fast-paced practice. \nJeanne served as the editor-in-chief of UNC-Chapel Hill’s daily newspaper, The Daily Tar Heel. Partner Recognized as Top Trade Secrets Lawyer in California Daily Journal 2023 Recognized as Top Labor and Employment Lawyer in California by the  Los Angeles Business Journal 2017 Recommended for Trade Secret Legal 500 US 2023 Recognized as Top 100 Women Lawyers in California Daily Journal 2018, 2019 Editorial Board Member – Media \u0026amp; Entertainment Law360 2024 Recognized as a Woman of Influence: Attorney Los Angeles Business Journal 2017, 2024 Named to the “Thriving in Their 40s” list Los Angeles Business Journal 2023 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina School of Law New York University New York University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California New York President, Los Angeles Civil Service Commission Board Member and President-Elect, California ChangeLawyers Board Member and Dinner Committee Chair, Association of Business Trial Lawyers Member, Sedona Conference WG12 Model Defend Trade Secrets Act Jury Instructions Brainstorming Group (committee working to draft model jury instructions to be used in DTSA cases) Member, CJA/CLA Civility in the Legal Profession Task Force LA Board of Directors and Co-Chair Government Relations Committee, Federal Bar Association Judicial Clerk, Hon. Raymond C. Fisher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judicial Clerk, Hon. Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Matters\nDefeated an application for preliminary injunction to prohibit an executive from competing against a former employer for a health care client Defeated an application for a TRO based on theft of trade secret claim for a health care client Obtained a TRO to require defendant to honor choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions in a former executive’s employment agreement Defeated a preliminary injunction to prevent competitor company from recruiting, soliciting and hiring plaintiff company’s employees Obtained a $6.15 million jury verdict for a leading aircraft supply company after a three-week trial on trade secret misappropriation and other tort claims against a former employee and other competitors Successfully defending a former pharmaceutical executive from claims of trade secret misappropriation, defeating a preliminary injunction Defended former employees against an internet affiliate company seeking to enforce noncompete agreement. Obtained a writ of supersedeas blocking enforcement of preliminary injunction, motivating settlement Business and Securities Disputes\nRepresented start-up technology company in lawsuit against component manufacturer alleging $200 million in damages; after serving as lead trial counsel in a two-week trial, obtained a favorable resolution on the eve of post-trial motion briefing Represented health care company in founders’ dispute; after defeating plaintiff-founders’ TRO application and successfully moving the case into arbitration, the case resolved Represented former Countrywide president in multidistrict litigation arising from mortgage-backed securities. Obtained the dismissal, with prejudice, of a number of lawsuits at the motion-to-dismiss stage Successfully recovered nearly 100 percent of the losses suffered by 23 victims of a Ponzi scheme run through a brokerage firm. Since 2009, Jeanne has represented a group of 23 plaintiffs who were victims of a Ponzi scheme. In 2015, she obtained a favorable settlement from a national brokerage firm in the days before trial. Most recently, she sought and obtained default judgments of more than $3 million for our clients Obtained a directed verdict for a registered financial company after a five-day jury trial on a fraud claim arising out of an investment loss Handled a class action on behalf of investors who lost money in a complex Ponzi scheme, obtaining more than $17 million in settlements with two major financial institutions and an accounting firm that were alleged to have aided the operators of the financial scheme In a corporate embezzlement case against a former employee, successfully recovered approximately $1 million for the client in less than one week Employment Matters\nOn the team that conducted an independent investigation into allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct in the National Women’s Soccer League, as commissioned by the U.S. Soccer Foundation. The report concluded that owners and coaches at all levels of the NWSL had turned a blind eye toward years of reports of abuse from players. Jeanne led the team investigating the role of SafeSport, the group tasked with handling certain player complaints Represented six individual defendants in a lawsuit alleging breach of employment obligations and breach of the duty to act fairly and honestly under Russian employment law, seeking $670 million. The court granted dismissal with prejudice. Jeanne’s clients were awarded almost $600,000 in attorneys’ fees. Preserved a settlement agreement in a suitable seating PAGA action against a major retailer, defeating a motion for sanctions Secured the dismissal of a suitable seating action against major retailer. Successfully resolving multiple wrongful termination cases for media clients before trial or arbitration commenced Represented a company in an investigation of fatality at work and resolved OSHA investigation into the incident Defended employment discrimination claims for an outdoor advertising company, resulting in settlements before any litigation was filed Family Law\nRepresented client in novel action brought under Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976); case resolved on eve of trial after favorable pretrial rulings Entertainment and Intellectual Property\nObtained summary judgment in a trademark matter in the Middle District of Florida that was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The court agreed with Jeanne’s argument that the \"Elimidate Ironman Challenge\" did not infringe the Ironman Triathlon trademarks because the term \"ironman\" is commonly used to describe persons of unusual endurance and thus the plaintiffs’ marks were entitled only to limited protection Defeated summary judgment brought by the Associated Press in litigation relating to Shepard Fairey’s 2008 campaign poster of Barack Obama on behalf of Fairey's exclusive licensee, Obey Clothing, leading to successful resolution of the dispute Obtained the affirmance of a judgment after a ten-day bench trial for an outdoor advertising company, allowing the company to continue to operate a billboard and including an award of almost $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs Achieved a complete defense judgment on behalf of Academy Award-winning actor Robert De Niro. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., which insured the film Hide and Seek in 2003, accused Mr. De Niro of intentionally withholding information about his cancer diagnosis during a cast medical examination. The case was dismissed in favor of Mr. De Niro Criminal Matters\nSecured the release of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi who had been incarcerated after refusing to testify before the grand jury against other Jewish persons—a case that drew international attention. The rabbi cited the rule of mesira, which imposes on the ultra-Orthodox the religious obligation to refrain from testifying against other Jews. The government eventually agreed to the rabbi’s release seven months after he was incarcerated, a fraction of the maximum eighteen-month term \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWon a complete dismissal of all charges in a groundbreaking and published decision against the client, who was charged in federal court with \"harboring\" her fugitive husband. The court ruled that federal prosecutors had arrested the client without probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The client was released and all charges were dismissed seven days after the case was filed by the United States Attorney’s Office\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n ","searchable_name":"Jeanne A. Fugate","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":444728,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6787,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJackie is a trial lawyer who represents clients in a range of complex commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp; Her experience includes defending clients against derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and representing clients in\u0026nbsp;litigation\u0026nbsp;related to\u0026nbsp;contract, securities, and antitrust matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJackie has represented clients in the tech, financial, energy,\u0026nbsp;pharmaceutical and retail industries.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, she was a litigator in New York at\u0026nbsp;Cravath, Swaine \u0026amp; Moore and Vinson \u0026amp; Elkins.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jackie-fugitt","email":"jfugitt@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL litigation alleging breach of contract and violation of consumer protection laws in connection with interest rates paid on savings account products\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003emajor financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e seeking more than $400 million in damages from a contractual counterparty in ongoing arbitration proceedings\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a total trial victory for a \u003cstrong\u003edirector defendant\u003c/strong\u003e and alleged controlling stockholder in a derivative action for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to a strategic acquisition\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major \u003cstrong\u003esemiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in antitrust and breach of contract litigation that resulted in a favorable settlement at the outset of trial\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the \u003cstrong\u003eboard of directors\u003c/strong\u003e of a SPAC in litigation regarding alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to a merger with a solar financing company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the \u003cstrong\u003eboard of directors\u003c/strong\u003e of an energy and technology company in derivative actions regarding executive and board compensation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an \u003cstrong\u003easset management firm\u003c/strong\u003e in in litigation regarding alleged breach of contract and tortious interference claims related to a spin-off transaction\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003epharmaceutical \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ecompany\u003c/strong\u003e in expedited litigation and trial regarding the termination of a merger agreement\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":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1166,"guid":"1166.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fugitt","nick_name":"Jackie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jackie","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2489,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude \u0026 Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2016-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJackie is a trial lawyer who represents clients in a range of complex commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp; Her experience includes defending clients against derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and representing clients in\u0026nbsp;litigation\u0026nbsp;related to\u0026nbsp;contract, securities, and antitrust matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJackie has represented clients in the tech, financial, energy,\u0026nbsp;pharmaceutical and retail industries.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, she was a litigator in New York at\u0026nbsp;Cravath, Swaine \u0026amp; Moore and Vinson \u0026amp; Elkins.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL litigation alleging breach of contract and violation of consumer protection laws in connection with interest rates paid on savings account products\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003emajor financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e seeking more than $400 million in damages from a contractual counterparty in ongoing arbitration proceedings\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a total trial victory for a \u003cstrong\u003edirector defendant\u003c/strong\u003e and alleged controlling stockholder in a derivative action for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to a strategic acquisition\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major \u003cstrong\u003esemiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in antitrust and breach of contract litigation that resulted in a favorable settlement at the outset of trial\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the \u003cstrong\u003eboard of directors\u003c/strong\u003e of a SPAC in litigation regarding alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to a merger with a solar financing company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the \u003cstrong\u003eboard of directors\u003c/strong\u003e of an energy and technology company in derivative actions regarding executive and board compensation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an \u003cstrong\u003easset management firm\u003c/strong\u003e in in litigation regarding alleged breach of contract and tortious interference claims related to a spin-off transaction\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003epharmaceutical \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ecompany\u003c/strong\u003e in expedited litigation and trial regarding the termination of a merger agreement\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12289}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-02T16:02:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T16:02:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Fugitt{{ FIELD }}Defending Capital One in MDL litigation alleging breach of contract and violation of consumer protection laws in connection with interest rates paid on savings account products{{ FIELD }}Representing a major financial institution seeking more than $400 million in damages from a contractual counterparty in ongoing arbitration proceedings{{ FIELD }}Obtained a total trial victory for a director defendant and alleged controlling stockholder in a derivative action for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to a strategic acquisition{{ FIELD }}Represented a major semiconductor company in antitrust and breach of contract litigation that resulted in a favorable settlement at the outset of trial{{ FIELD }}Represented the board of directors of a SPAC in litigation regarding alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to a merger with a solar financing company{{ FIELD }}Represented the board of directors of an energy and technology company in derivative actions regarding executive and board compensation{{ FIELD }}Represented an asset management firm in in litigation regarding alleged breach of contract and tortious interference claims related to a spin-off transaction{{ FIELD }}Represented a pharmaceutical company in expedited litigation and trial regarding the termination of a merger agreement{{ FIELD }}Jackie is a trial lawyer who represents clients in a range of complex commercial disputes.  Her experience includes defending clients against derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty and representing clients in litigation related to contract, securities, and antitrust matters.\nJackie has represented clients in the tech, financial, energy, pharmaceutical and retail industries.  Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, she was a litigator in New York at Cravath, Swaine \u0026amp; Moore and Vinson \u0026amp; Elkins.   Partner Missouri State University  Washington University in St. Louis Washington University in St. Louis School of Law U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New York Defending Capital One in MDL litigation alleging breach of contract and violation of consumer protection laws in connection with interest rates paid on savings account products Representing a major financial institution seeking more than $400 million in damages from a contractual counterparty in ongoing arbitration proceedings Obtained a total trial victory for a director defendant and alleged controlling stockholder in a derivative action for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to a strategic acquisition Represented a major semiconductor company in antitrust and breach of contract litigation that resulted in a favorable settlement at the outset of trial Represented the board of directors of a SPAC in litigation regarding alleged breaches of fiduciary duty related to a merger with a solar financing company Represented the board of directors of an energy and technology company in derivative actions regarding executive and board compensation Represented an asset management firm in in litigation regarding alleged breach of contract and tortious interference claims related to a spin-off transaction Represented a pharmaceutical company in expedited litigation and trial regarding the termination of a merger agreement","searchable_name":"Jackie Fugitt","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":448882,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":991,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eArthur Fahlbusch is counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s E-Discovery practice. Arthur is a commercial and product liability litigator with experience in all phases of litigation in state and federal courts. His practice focuses on discovery issues, the discovery of electronically stored information in complex litigation, and litigating attorney-client privilege and work product claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]Arthur has been providing legal advice concerning discovery in complex litigation for more than a fifteen years. He regularly provides guidance on e-discovery practices and cost-effective repeatable processes to address e-discovery issues. Arthur addressed e-discovery issues before that term gained widespread usage. He works with IT professionals regarding litigation support, email, and backup systems. He speaks on electronic discovery and privilege and is a member of e-discovery working groups of The Sedona Conference\u0026reg;. He has trained and supervised large discovery teams. Always seeking ways to reduce costs while increasing quality, Arthur developed innovative techniques for preparing privilege logs that allow for more robust (and challenge resistant) entries at a lower overall cost. He has significant experience defending privilege and work product claims and addressing crime-fraud allegations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2001, Arthur practiced in New York for almost 15 years with Shea \u0026amp; Gould, Breed Abbott \u0026amp; Morgan and Chadbourne \u0026amp; Parke LLP. His practice included all phases of civil litigation in state and federal courts, including drafting and arguing motions and appeals, taking and defending depositions, and examining witnesses at trial. Drawing upon that experience and his substantial discovery experience, Arthur seeks to counsel clients so that discovery issues do not overshadow the merits of the litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience with large-scale complex discovery began in the mid-1990s while defending several cigarette manufacturers in the landmark Medicaid cost recovery actions brought by state attorneys general against the tobacco industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2001, Arthur assumed primary day-to-day responsibility for all discovery issues across the country in connection with King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s role as National Discovery Counsel for the Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corporation. That included a well-publicized action brought by the federal government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArthur also had primary responsibility for defending privilege and work product claims in various courts across the country for a major pharmaceutical company and has primary responsibility for defending privilege and work product claims in a multidistrict litigation for a major automobile company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the firm\u0026rsquo;s role as National Discovery Coordinating Counsel for a major financial institution, Arthur was the primary contact. In that capacity, he regularly addressed various discovery issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter graduating from law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Truman A. Morrison, III of the District of Columbia Superior Court.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"arthur-fahlbusch","email":"afahlbusch@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eArthur addressed various aspects of document discovery and supervised large teams of attorneys and legal support personnel in connection with the privilege review and production of more than three million pages of documents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe also supervised the preparation of more than 50,000 privilege log entries for different clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe litigated various discovery issues, including privilege, work product and crime-fraud issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArthur trained and supervised large discovery teams of attorneys, paralegals and IT professionals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe was responsible for discovery responses, document productions, and preparing defensible privilege logs in all cases throughout the country.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe also litigated numerous discovery issues, drafted responses to numerous motions to compel, and developed strategy with case counsel and counsel for other defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArthur defended privilege and work product claims for more than 1,000 documents and prepared briefs, affidavits, and related submissions totaling over 1,300 pages for \u003cem\u003ein camera\u003c/em\u003e review.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe addressed defensive discovery requests both in the pre-trial and trial contexts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArthur provided legal advice to in-house and outside counsel concerning discovery issues, including the collection, preservation and production of electronically stored information under the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe regularly addressed form of production issues, \u0026ldquo;not reasonably accessible\u0026rdquo; electronically stored information, preparing for discovery conferences and drafting submissions regarding electronically stored information and other discovery issues. He has successfully prevented the restoration of backup tapes and opposed motions for sanctions concerning, among other things, email productions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe also prepared company representatives for depositions concerning e-discovery issues and defended such depositions.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":7,"guid":"7.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":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fahlbusch","nick_name":"Arthur","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Truman A. Morrison III, Washington, D.C.","years_held":"1985 - 1986"}],"first_name":"Arthur","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eArthur Fahlbusch is counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s E-Discovery practice. Arthur is a commercial and product liability litigator with experience in all phases of litigation in state and federal courts. His practice focuses on discovery issues, the discovery of electronically stored information in complex litigation, and litigating attorney-client privilege and work product claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]Arthur has been providing legal advice concerning discovery in complex litigation for more than a fifteen years. He regularly provides guidance on e-discovery practices and cost-effective repeatable processes to address e-discovery issues. Arthur addressed e-discovery issues before that term gained widespread usage. He works with IT professionals regarding litigation support, email, and backup systems. He speaks on electronic discovery and privilege and is a member of e-discovery working groups of The Sedona Conference\u0026reg;. He has trained and supervised large discovery teams. Always seeking ways to reduce costs while increasing quality, Arthur developed innovative techniques for preparing privilege logs that allow for more robust (and challenge resistant) entries at a lower overall cost. He has significant experience defending privilege and work product claims and addressing crime-fraud allegations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2001, Arthur practiced in New York for almost 15 years with Shea \u0026amp; Gould, Breed Abbott \u0026amp; Morgan and Chadbourne \u0026amp; Parke LLP. His practice included all phases of civil litigation in state and federal courts, including drafting and arguing motions and appeals, taking and defending depositions, and examining witnesses at trial. Drawing upon that experience and his substantial discovery experience, Arthur seeks to counsel clients so that discovery issues do not overshadow the merits of the litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience with large-scale complex discovery began in the mid-1990s while defending several cigarette manufacturers in the landmark Medicaid cost recovery actions brought by state attorneys general against the tobacco industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2001, Arthur assumed primary day-to-day responsibility for all discovery issues across the country in connection with King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s role as National Discovery Counsel for the Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corporation. That included a well-publicized action brought by the federal government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArthur also had primary responsibility for defending privilege and work product claims in various courts across the country for a major pharmaceutical company and has primary responsibility for defending privilege and work product claims in a multidistrict litigation for a major automobile company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the firm\u0026rsquo;s role as National Discovery Coordinating Counsel for a major financial institution, Arthur was the primary contact. In that capacity, he regularly addressed various discovery issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter graduating from law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Truman A. Morrison, III of the District of Columbia Superior Court.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eArthur addressed various aspects of document discovery and supervised large teams of attorneys and legal support personnel in connection with the privilege review and production of more than three million pages of documents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe also supervised the preparation of more than 50,000 privilege log entries for different clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe litigated various discovery issues, including privilege, work product and crime-fraud issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArthur trained and supervised large discovery teams of attorneys, paralegals and IT professionals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe was responsible for discovery responses, document productions, and preparing defensible privilege logs in all cases throughout the country.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe also litigated numerous discovery issues, drafted responses to numerous motions to compel, and developed strategy with case counsel and counsel for other defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArthur defended privilege and work product claims for more than 1,000 documents and prepared briefs, affidavits, and related submissions totaling over 1,300 pages for \u003cem\u003ein camera\u003c/em\u003e review.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe addressed defensive discovery requests both in the pre-trial and trial contexts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArthur provided legal advice to in-house and outside counsel concerning discovery issues, including the collection, preservation and production of electronically stored information under the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe regularly addressed form of production issues, \u0026ldquo;not reasonably accessible\u0026rdquo; electronically stored information, preparing for discovery conferences and drafting submissions regarding electronically stored information and other discovery issues. He has successfully prevented the restoration of backup tapes and opposed motions for sanctions concerning, among other things, email productions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHe also prepared company representatives for depositions concerning e-discovery issues and defended such depositions.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:14.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T22:09:14.000Z","searchable_text":"Fahlbusch{{ FIELD }}Arthur addressed various aspects of document discovery and supervised large teams of attorneys and legal support personnel in connection with the privilege review and production of more than three million pages of documents.{{ FIELD }}He also supervised the preparation of more than 50,000 privilege log entries for different clients.{{ FIELD }}He litigated various discovery issues, including privilege, work product and crime-fraud issues.{{ FIELD }}Arthur trained and supervised large discovery teams of attorneys, paralegals and IT professionals.{{ FIELD }}He was responsible for discovery responses, document productions, and preparing defensible privilege logs in all cases throughout the country.{{ FIELD }}He also litigated numerous discovery issues, drafted responses to numerous motions to compel, and developed strategy with case counsel and counsel for other defendants.{{ FIELD }}Arthur defended privilege and work product claims for more than 1,000 documents and prepared briefs, affidavits, and related submissions totaling over 1,300 pages for in camera review.{{ FIELD }}He addressed defensive discovery requests both in the pre-trial and trial contexts.{{ FIELD }}Arthur provided legal advice to in-house and outside counsel concerning discovery issues, including the collection, preservation and production of electronically stored information under the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.{{ FIELD }}He regularly addressed form of production issues, “not reasonably accessible” electronically stored information, preparing for discovery conferences and drafting submissions regarding electronically stored information and other discovery issues. He has successfully prevented the restoration of backup tapes and opposed motions for sanctions concerning, among other things, email productions.{{ FIELD }}He also prepared company representatives for depositions concerning e-discovery issues and defended such depositions.{{ FIELD }}Arthur Fahlbusch is counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Atlanta office and a member of the firm’s E-Discovery practice. Arthur is a commercial and product liability litigator with experience in all phases of litigation in state and federal courts. His practice focuses on discovery issues, the discovery of electronically stored information in complex litigation, and litigating attorney-client privilege and work product claims.\nArthur has been providing legal advice concerning discovery in complex litigation for more than a fifteen years. He regularly provides guidance on e-discovery practices and cost-effective repeatable processes to address e-discovery issues. Arthur addressed e-discovery issues before that term gained widespread usage. He works with IT professionals regarding litigation support, email, and backup systems. He speaks on electronic discovery and privilege and is a member of e-discovery working groups of The Sedona Conference®. He has trained and supervised large discovery teams. Always seeking ways to reduce costs while increasing quality, Arthur developed innovative techniques for preparing privilege logs that allow for more robust (and challenge resistant) entries at a lower overall cost. He has significant experience defending privilege and work product claims and addressing crime-fraud allegations.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2001, Arthur practiced in New York for almost 15 years with Shea \u0026amp; Gould, Breed Abbott \u0026amp; Morgan and Chadbourne \u0026amp; Parke LLP. His practice included all phases of civil litigation in state and federal courts, including drafting and arguing motions and appeals, taking and defending depositions, and examining witnesses at trial. Drawing upon that experience and his substantial discovery experience, Arthur seeks to counsel clients so that discovery issues do not overshadow the merits of the litigation.\nHis experience with large-scale complex discovery began in the mid-1990s while defending several cigarette manufacturers in the landmark Medicaid cost recovery actions brought by state attorneys general against the tobacco industry.\nAfter joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2001, Arthur assumed primary day-to-day responsibility for all discovery issues across the country in connection with King \u0026amp; Spalding’s role as National Discovery Counsel for the Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corporation. That included a well-publicized action brought by the federal government.\nArthur also had primary responsibility for defending privilege and work product claims in various courts across the country for a major pharmaceutical company and has primary responsibility for defending privilege and work product claims in a multidistrict litigation for a major automobile company.\nIn the firm’s role as National Discovery Coordinating Counsel for a major financial institution, Arthur was the primary contact. In that capacity, he regularly addressed various discovery issues.\nAfter graduating from law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Truman A. Morrison, III of the District of Columbia Superior Court. Counsel Hofstra University Hofstra University School of Law Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Tax Court U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Georgia New York American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Law Clerk, Truman A. Morrison III, Washington, D.C. Arthur addressed various aspects of document discovery and supervised large teams of attorneys and legal support personnel in connection with the privilege review and production of more than three million pages of documents. He also supervised the preparation of more than 50,000 privilege log entries for different clients. He litigated various discovery issues, including privilege, work product and crime-fraud issues. Arthur trained and supervised large discovery teams of attorneys, paralegals and IT professionals. He was responsible for discovery responses, document productions, and preparing defensible privilege logs in all cases throughout the country. He also litigated numerous discovery issues, drafted responses to numerous motions to compel, and developed strategy with case counsel and counsel for other defendants. Arthur defended privilege and work product claims for more than 1,000 documents and prepared briefs, affidavits, and related submissions totaling over 1,300 pages for in camera review. He addressed defensive discovery requests both in the pre-trial and trial contexts. Arthur provided legal advice to in-house and outside counsel concerning discovery issues, including the collection, preservation and production of electronically stored information under the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He regularly addressed form of production issues, “not reasonably accessible” electronically stored information, preparing for discovery conferences and drafting submissions regarding electronically stored information and other discovery issues. He has successfully prevented the restoration of backup tapes and opposed motions for sanctions concerning, among other things, email productions. He also prepared company representatives for depositions concerning e-discovery issues and defended such depositions.","searchable_name":"Arthur C. Fahlbusch, Jr.","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}]}}