We resolve business and commercial disputes of all types, including breach of contract or warranty, contractual or business relations, fraudulent conveyances, non-competition agreements and other restrictive covenants. We have defended the full gamut of personal injury claims, including wrongful death and severe injuries that resulted in life-long disabilities, such as quadriplegia, paraplegia, and permanent brain damage. In cases of clear liability, we find creative ways of address damages, such as the retention of experts to assess annuities and life expectancy, and specialized motions.
Defended termite service provider in state court actions in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina involving allegations of consumer fraud and violations of state consumer protection statutes. Successes include defeat on appeal of class certification in consumer class action asserting claims of consumer fraud and violations of Georgia Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Defense of pharmaceutical liability and medical device litigation involving contraceptives, medicines for treatment and prevention of bone loss, blood thinners, cholesterol reduction medicines, anti‐depressants, and latex gloves. Examples of experience include: obtaining orders excluding opposing expert opinions and granting summary judgment; development and coordination of expert witness testimony in Multi-District Litigation; serving on ...
Won motion to dismiss and defeated appeal over plaintiff’s attempt to negate a venue selection clause based on strong Illinois public policy.
Represented Mueller Water Products, Inc. in action against Singer Valve, Inc. and Singer Valve, LLC alleging patent infringement of Mueller’s patent for an apparatus for the enhancement of water quality in a subterranean pressurized water distribution system. Negotiated a favorable settlement with defendants. Mueller Water Products, Inc. v. Singer Valve, Inc. and Singer Valve, LLC.
Led defense of Mueller Water Products, Inc. in a case brought by a non-practicing entity, Endeavor MeshTech, for infringement of a patent related to premises-monitoring technology. The client reached a favorable confidential settlement with the plaintiff and the case has been dismissed. Endeavor MeshTech, LLC v. Mueller Water Products.
Led the defense of H-E Parts against ESCO Corporation in a case involving allegations of trademark infringement and infringement of a patent related to excavator teeth on heavy equipment. We negotiated a favorable settlement with plaintiff. Esco Corporation v. H-E Parts et al.
Led the defense of Royal Metal against an inventor/patentee in a case involving claims of infringement of a patent related to industrial package assemblies. We negotiated a favorable settlement with plaintiff. Gray v. Royal Metal et al.
Handled two cases for separate defendants, Ascendx Spine and Sintea Plustek, LLC, in the District of Delaware. Both cases were brought by Orthophoenix, LLC, a non-practicing entity, and involved claims of infringement of certain patents involving medical device technology. The parties in both cases reached confidential settlements. Orthophoenix, LLC v. Ascendx Spine; Orthophoenix, LLC v. Sintea Plustek.
Handled the defense of Allure Global in a case brought by a non-practicing entity, Activelight, Inc., involving allegations of infringement of patents related to digital signage. The parties reached a confidential settlement. Activelight, Inc. v. Allure Global, et al.
Handled the defense of Expression Beauty Works in a case involving claims of infringement of a patent related to crackle nail polish. Negotiated a favorable settlement with plaintiff. Kirker Enterprises v. Expression Beauty Works.
Represented defendants in a large case involving claims for tortious interference, breach of restrictive covenants, and unjust enrichment in connection with the importation and sale of industrial yarn. After extensive discovery and our filing of a lengthy motion for summary judgment, the parties reached a confidential settlement.
After representing a client corporation in the sale of its stock in a target company to a purchaser, collateralized by the target company’s stock, a default occurred. The client suspected the purchaser was draining the assets of the target company and filed suit against the purchaser for an accounting. The accounting revealed extension siphoning of assets of the target company by the purchaser. Pursuant to the terms of the stock purchase agreement, the ...
- January 8, 2016