Appellate Advocacy and Guidance

Our experience includes appearances in state and federal appellate courts for appeals involving a wide range of issues including:

• Business Litigation
• Constitutional Law
• Contracts
• Elections and Legislative Redistricting
• Financial Markets Litigation
• Insurance
• Internal Investigations, Including Corporate Fraud
• Patent Litigation
• Trade Secret
• Trusts and Estates

Collaboration Adds to the Team
Our appellate success is based on teamwork and concrete individual contributions. We know that many of our present and future clients are well served by capable and effective trial lawyers. Our approach is not to replace those lawyers, but to join the existing team to produce the best possible representation at all levels of the appellate litigation, beginning with the foundational efforts in the trial court, and proceeding through appellate argument and decision. As many of our clients already realize, picking the right lawyers to do the right job is often the key to success.

Business Litigation

• Celador International, Ltd. v. The Walt Disney Company: Represent Celador International, Ltd. in a dispute over profits from the highly successful television show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" A federal jury awarded Celador, the creator of the show, $270 million in damages after finding that Disney's subsidiaries, ABC Television, Buena Vista Television, and Valleycrest Productions had breached their profitsharing contract with Celador and their duty to deal fairly and in good faith with Celador. On September 27, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California awarded $50 million in prejudgment interest to Celador, bringing the total to $320 million in damages. On December 3, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the entire verdict and awarded the plaintiff its costs on appeal. On February 26, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously denied Disney’s petition for rehearing and review of the $320 million jury verdict and judgment in favor of Celador. 


• Insulate SB, Inc. v. Advanced Finishing Systems, Inc., Lead counsel for fluid-handling equipment manufacturer Graco Inc. in putative nationwide antitrust class action alleging unlawful business acquisitions and boycott, exclusive-dealing, and monopolization conspiracies. We obtained the dismissal of all claims with prejudice, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31188 (D. Minn. Mar. 11, 2014), and we represented Graco in the appeal, where the judgment was affirmed. __ F.3d __, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14233 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2015).


• Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Association et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.: Represented four nonprofits in case against bank where the collateral in a securities lending program was to be invested in short-term money market instruments, where the prime considerations would be safety of principal and liquidity. Instead, the bank invested a substantial portion of the collateral in risky and/or illiquid securities, including complex structured investments. The jury found that Wells Fargo breached its fiduciary duty and violated the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act. In post-trial orders, the trial court awarded Plaintiffs attorneys' fees, and costs and disbursements. The trial court also awarded Plaintiffs forfeiture of fees by Wells Fargo and awarded pre-and post-judgment interest. The final judgment, plus additional post-trial attorneys' fees paid by Wells Fargo, totaled more than $57 million. 


• Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.: Represented defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and PacifiCare, Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit involving alleged price-fixing and fraud related to prescription drug reimbursement under the federal Medicare Part D program. Plaintiff Omnicare sought damages exceeding $1 billion and permanent injunctive relief. After the summary-judgment motion was argued in August 2008, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims in January 2009. Published decision: Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Summary judgment was subsequently affirmed. Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 629 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2011).


• In re Imagitas, Inc. DPPA Litigation: Obtained summary judgment affirmed by Court of Appeals in defense of alleged class actions that the insertion of advertising into motor vehicle registration mailings violated the federal Drivers' Privacy Protection Act.

Intellectual Property 

• Juniper Networks v. Shipley, Obtained dismissal for inventor in a false patent marking case brought under 35 USC sec. 292 in the Northern District of California. 


• Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc., 626 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010): Invalidated all asserted claims of infringement against MoneyGram on three patents held by Western Union relating to methods of transferring money.


• Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices: Represented Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) in patent litigation against Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) on three patents drawn to graphics processing. The case resolved shortly before trial, after 37 motions-in-limine were filed by AMD.


• Great Clips, Inc. v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, L.L.C. and Great Cuts, Inc.: Summary judgment granted to client, Great Clips, Inc., against claims of trademark infringement.


• Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elec. N.V., et al., 586 F.3d 980 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Convinced the appellate court to reverse the entry of judgment on the pleadings dismissing two of Imation's key counts, and instead to order judgment for Imation on the question of whether certain entities formed or acquired later qualify as "subsidiaries" that could benefit from Imation's patent license with Philips.


• Andersen v. Pella Corp. et al: Represented plaintiff Andersen Corporation in overturning a District Court decision granting the defendants summary judgment and finding that claims of the asserted patent were invalid as obvious. The Federal


• Circuit's decision was one of the first post-KSR District Court findings of obviousness to be reversed by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for certioriari. 2007-1536, 2008-WL4927431, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2008), cert. denied.


• Ricoh Corp. v. Pitney Bowes Inc.: Defended Pitney Bowes in a patent infringement involving communications and control within Pitney Bowes' mailing machines. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Trenton Division, with Judge Brown presiding. The jury returned a verdict of invalidity in favor of Pitney Bowes finding anticipation of all 18 asserted claims. In addition, during trial, the court entered summary judgment of anticipation of four additional claims. Jury decision was affirmed in a post-trial memorandum by the District Court and summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit.


• RealSource, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., et al.: Trial and appellate counsel for Best Buy involving patent claims asserted in U. S. District Court in Austin, Texas. The plaintiff alleged Best Buy's gift cards infringed its patent, and sought more than $32 million in damages. Summary judgment was granted. The judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on June 23, 2008.


• Electromotive Division of General Motors Corporation v. Transportation Systems Division of General Electric Co., et al.: Obtained summary judgment for General Electric in a patent infringement action brought by General Motors involving planetary and compressor bearings used diesel in locomotive engines. 


• Luigino's, Inc. v. Robert Peterson and IBP: Obtained summary judgment for Robert Peterson, the CEO of IBP, and the company, in the defense of a $500 million theft of trade secret, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract case.


• Union Oil Company of California ("UNOCAL") v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.: Represented UNOCAL in a patent infringement case over UNOCAL’s patent on gasoline. Jury verdict and ultimate judgment with interest and attorney fees in favor of UNOCAL amounted to $91 million. 


• Fonar v. General Electric: Represented Fonar Corporation and Dr. Raymond V. Damadian in a patent infringement action against General Electric involving patents on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines. At trial the jury awarded Fonar $110.5 million. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed almost the entire award, ordering General Electric to pay $103.4 million, reported at the time to be the largest patent infringement jury verdict ever upheld on appeal (IP Worldwide). Fonar Corporation v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 266 (1997). After the Supreme Court denied certiorari, General Electric paid Fonar $128 million (judgment plus interest).

• Asael Farr & Sons Co. v. Truck Ins. Exch., 193 P.3d 650 (Utah Ct. App. 2008): Affirmed summary judgment in favor of property insurer on insured's claim to recover more than $25,000 limitation of liability for product contamination losses.


• Miletich v. Travelers Property & Cas. Ins. Co., No. D048409, 2007 WL 4395702 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2007): Jury trial with verdict finding insured's loss excluded by deterioration exclusion and subsequent appeal affirming summary judgment on insured's bad faith claim on grounds that jury's subsequent determination that there was no coverage for insured's claim meant that insurer could not have acted in bad faith as a matter of law.


• Penton Media, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 245 Fed. Appx. 495, 2007 WL 2332323 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2007): Affirmed summary judgment granted to property insurer in 9/11 business interruption claim based on FEMA takeover of Jacob Javits Center.

* Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation we practice. They do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case, as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.