Education & Honors

University of Chicago Law School, 2001, J.D., with Honors

University of Chicago Law Review

University of Kansas, 1998, B.G.S.

Perfect GPA at Kansas

1st-Team Academic All Big XII, 1997 (one of four Big XII football players to letter and have 4.0 GPA)

Awards & Recognition

2013 BTI Client Service All-Star

Named one of 40 Illinois Attorneys Under Forty to Watch 2011

Super Lawyers Rising Star
(multiple years)

Bar admissions

Illinois 

Professional activities and community service

Northwestern School of Law - Adjunct Professor (Spring 2009):  Taught "High Tech Trial Techniques" class on the use of technology at trial and in preparation for trial

Hamilton H. Hill

Chicago Office
Courthouse Place
54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60654
Back to previous page

Professional Practice

Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, 2001-Present, Partner (since 2007)

In 2011, Hamilton was named one of the 40 Illinois Attorneys Under Forty to Watch.  Click here for article. 
He was also named a 2013 BTI Client Service All-Star, which is given to those who deliver "the absolute best client service."  Law 360 called the litigators who made the list the "cream of the crop," and noted that less than 100 litigators nationwide received this recognition.  Click for release and article.

Cases tried or otherwise taken to judgment

Rolls-Royce v. United Technologies (U.S. District Court, E.D. Va.)
Represented United Technologies and its Pratt & Whitney division in an alleged multi-billion dollar patent case brought by Rolls-Royce.  The technology at issue related to the jet engines (particularly the fan blades) used on the world’s largest airplane, the Airbus A380, as well as a host of other airplanes. Rolls-Royce sought almost $4 billion in damages and an injunction preventing further sales of the accused engines.  The Court granted summary judgment in United Technologies' favor, finding that its engines did not infringe the Rolls-Royce patent.

Led United Technologies’ defense on damages issues.  Prior to the summary judgment decision, the Court struck Rolls-Royce’s nearly $4 billion damages theory.  In the damages ruling, the Court found that Rolls-Royce’s multi-billion dollar claim for “price erosion and lost profits damages is based on misstatements of the law, a lack of sound evidence, and unsupported economic assumptions, and its paid up royalty theory is similarly flawed.  [The damages report of Rolls-Royce's expert Mary Woodford] reads more like a lawyer’s brief advocating for the highest conceivable damages award rather than an expert trying to assist the trier of fact reach a reasonable damages figure.  Because of this extensive overreaching, the entire report is undermined.” 

Click here for more details about the case; Click here for the damages ruling

Treasurer of the State of Connecticut v. Forstmann Little, et al. (Superior Court, Rockville, Connecticut)
Represented Forstmann Little in a lawsuit brought by one of Forstmann Little's limited partners, the State of Connecticut pension funds. Connecticut claimed damages of over $125 million for itself and over $1 billion in derivative claims, alleging violations of the securities laws, breaches of contract, and breaches of fiduciary duties. The suit was the first ever filed by a limited partner against a major private equity firm, and it was closely followed by every major financial publication. After five week jury trial in small town of Rockville, Connecticut, jury came back with verdict for Forstmann Little. The jury found that the State had been fully informed of the investments and had approved them at the time they were made, and that Forstmann Little was fully justified in relying on the advice of its counsel when making the investments.  Because it found that Forstmann Little was not liable, the jury did not even reach the issue of damages.

Click here for more details about the case and press reports

Stein v. Windsor Energy, et al (District Court, Goodhue County, Minnesota)
Representing former Minnesota Timberwolves CEO Bob Stein in a case relating to certain silica sand deposits in Goodhue County, Minnesota.  Mr. Stein filed the case seeking a declaratory judgment that he still owns half the rights to the silica sand.  Mr. Stein also alleged that defendant Windsor Energy (and its related companies) had intentionally interfered with his contract with the landowner.  In April 2013, the Court granted Mr. Stein’s request for a declaratory judgment.  Then in June 2013, after a week-long trial, a jury found that Windsor Energy had intentionally interfered with Mr. Stein’s contract with the landowner.  The next step is a damages trial, which is expected to be held in late 2013 or early 2014.

Click here to read more

Smith v. Merck (U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana)
Represented Merck in the third federal trial against Merck since it withdrew Vioxx from the market in 2004.  Plaintiff Garry Smith alleged that Merck's Vioxx caused him injuries, including a heart attack.  After a two-and-a-half week trial, the jury deliberated three hours before returning a complete defense verdict for Merck.

Barnett v. Merck (U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana)
Represented Merck in the second federal trial against Merck since it withdrew Vioxx from the market in 2004.  Plaintiff Gerald Barnett alleged that Merck's Vioxx caused him injuries, including a heart attack.  After a three week trial, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff.  Judgment substantially reduced following post-trial briefing.

Krippelz v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois)
Represented inventor Jacob Krippelz, Sr. in patent infringement action against Ford Motor Co. involving automotive exterior mirror lighting systems.  Jury returned verdict in client's favor in the amount of $23 million.  District Court then found willful infringement and awarded an additional $33 million in enhanced damages and prejudgment interest for a total award of $56 million.  Federal Circuit reversed on invalidity grounds.

United States v. United Technologies Corp. (U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division at Dayton)
Represented United Technologies in 10-week bench trial of False Claims Act case brought by the Department of Justice.  Government sought $624 million, alleging price inflation on jet engine sales by UTC division Pratt & Whitney to the Air Force from 1985-1991.  Trial court's judgment rejected the government’s $624 million damages claim, held that the government suffered no actual damages, and imposed statutory penalties of $7 million.  On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.  On remand, District Court accepted government’s damages claim.  UTC is appealing that ruling.

Nicor Gas Co. v. J.F. Edwards Construction Co. (Circuit Court, Kane County, Illinois); Nicor Gas Co. v. R.W. Dunteman Construction Co. (Circuit Court, DuPage County, Illinois)
Represented Nicor in two separate cases to recover for damage to Nicor's gas lines caused by construction companies.  First chaired both two day jury trials.  Complete victory for Nicor in each case.  In the case against J.F. Edwards, the jury awarded Nicor 100% of its claimed damages, and denied J.F. Edwards' counterclaim in full.  In the case against R.W. Dunteman, the jury found Dunteman was liable for hitting all four of Nicor's gas lines, and awarded Nicor 98.75% of its claimed damages.

BJ Services v. Halliburton (U.S. District Court, S.D. Texas)
Represented Halliburton in patent infringement matter involving a patent on methods for fracturing subterranean formations to stimulate oil and gas recovery.  Hired to try case ninety days before trial, after all discovery and pre-trial filings were complete.  After month-long jury trial, judgment for BJ for less than 25% of damages sought.

Other representative cases

Neology v. Federal Signal and 3M (U.S. District Court, D. Delaware; International Trade Commission)
Lead counsel (along with my partner Adam Mortara) for Federal Signal and 3M defending patent infringement suits brought by Neology relating to various RFID technologies.  Neology originally sued Federal Signal in the District of Delaware and moved for a preliminary injunction.  After an evidentiary hearing and oral argument, we defeated Neology’s preliminary injunction motion.  While District Court case proceeded, Neology also brought an action against Federal Signal and 3M in the International Trade Commission.  Both matters settled before trial.

Express Scripts v. Walgreen Co. (N.D. Ill. and American Arbitration Association 2011)
Represented Walgreens after Express Scripts filed a preliminary injunction action against it. Express Scripts sought a broad preliminary injunction to shut down Walgreens’ entire “I choose Walgreens” communications campaign. Walgreens successfully moved to compel arbitration, and the case was transferred from federal court to an AAA arbitration.  After a two day evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction motions, the arbitrator issued a ruling denying both parties' requests for preliminary injunctive relief. After the ruling, Walgreens continued its “I choose Walgreens” campaign. Later, prior to the hearing on the merits, the parties agreed to dismiss their respective claims. No other action has been or will be taken by either party with respect to this case.

Click here for press report

Neil F. Sullivan, et al. v. E-One Inc., et al. (Superior Court, Middlesex County, Massachusetts)
Lead counsel for defendant fire truck manufacturer E-One (and its former parent, Federal Signal) in a product liability action alleging personal injuries stemming from a fire scene accident where a firefighter was injured.  Plaintiffs alleged negligent design, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and violations of Massachusetts General Law 93A.  Case settled shortly before trial. 

Morgan Stanley v. Discover Financial Services (Supreme Court, New York County, NY)
Represented Discover in a dispute concerning the division of Discover's $2.75 billion settlement of its antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard. Morgan Stanley and Discover disputed how much of the $2.75 billion Morgan Stanley was entitled to (Morgan Stanley spun off Discover during the antitrust suit).  Case settled before trial with Morgan Stanley agreeing to an approximately $85 million reduction in its share of the proceeds.

United Technologies v. PerkinElmer, Inc. and Eaton Corp. (U.S. District Court, New Haven, Connecticut)
Represented United Technologies as plaintiff in patent infringement lawsuit relating to brush seals on its PW4000 engine.  Case settled shortly after complete Markman victory for United Technologies.

Confidential Arbitration (San Jose, CA)
Represented former owners of software company in breach of contract action against the purchaser of the company.  Case settled two weeks prior to arbitration hearing.

Lazo v. Mercury Marine (Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, FL); Barnot v. Mercury Marine (District Court, Harris County, Texas)
Represented Mercury Marine in purported class actions in Texas and Florida state courts brought by purchasers of OptiMax outboard engines.  Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and product defect.  The case settled, and the nation-wide settlement was approved by the Circuit Court in Dade County, Florida.

Honeywell International, Inc. v. Goodrich Corporation (U.S. District Court, D. Delaware)
Represented Goodrich in patent infringement matter involving patents on collision warning systems for aircraft.  Case settled prior to trial.

Schwartz v. QUALCOMM (District Court, Boulder County, Colorado)
Represented QUALCOMM in action brought by 87 former employees alleging fraud and breach of contract in connection with unvested stock options. Assisted mainly during discovery, deposing 20 named plaintiffs.  Bartlit Beck obtained dismissal or summary judgment as to 81 plaintiffs. Remaining plaintiffs settled before or during trial.

Newsome v. McCabe (U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois)
Assisted during the appeal phase in representation of James Newsome in Section 1983 civil rights action. Newsome, an African-American male, alleged that two Chicago police officers framed him for a murder he did not commit, causing him to spend 15 years in prison.  Jury returned $15 million verdict on Newsome’s behalf.  Verdict was upheld in its entirety by the 7th Circuit.

Big Wins