Big Wins

Phil Beck cross-examining a witness.

Since its founding, Bartlit Beck has achieved more National Law Journal top defense victories than any other firm of any size in the country. 

Bartlit Beck's victories come in a wide variety of cases, including: Accountants Liability, AntitrustClass Actions, False Claims Act and Government Contracts Cases, General Commercial Litigation, Hedge Fund, Private Equity, and Financial Institution Litigation, Intellectual Property, General Product Liability, Pharmaceutical Product Liability, Fraud and Securities, and Toxic Tort Cases.

For more detail on some of our "big wins," click on the links below.  For more on our trial practice and philosophy, click here.

Bartlit Beck Obtains Complete Victory in Billion-Dollar Arbitration
Phoenix, AZ (2016)

Bartlit Beck attorneys Phil Beck, Peter Bensinger, Hamilton Hill, Katherine Minarik and Wesley Morissette secured a complete victory for a Fortune 100 client in arbitration over a multi-billion dollar contract dispute. The confidential, two-week arbitration hearing in Phoenix included testimony from numerous senior executives and expert witnesses.

Bartlit Beck Helps UTC Successfully Resolve Long-running False Claims Act Litigation Against DOJ
U.S. v. United Technologies, 782 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2015); U.S. v. United Technologies, 2016 WL 3141569, __ F. Supp. 3d __ (S.D. Ohio 2016)

The Department of Justice’s 17-year, $600 million False Claims Act lawsuit against Bartlit Beck client United Technologies Corporation ended very favorably for UTC.  The government claimed that UTC division Pratt & Whitney had inflated prices of F-15 and F-16 jet engines in the “Great Engine War” with GE, a multi-billion dollar competitive Air Force procurement in the 1980s.  The case involved a ten-week bench trial, two rounds of appeals to the Sixth Circuit, and two rounds of remand proceedings in the trial court.  Bartlit Beck served as UTC’s lead trial counsel and appellate co-counsel.

UTC hired Bartlit Beck 90 days before trial in 2004, after five years of document discovery, more than 150 depositions, and dozens of pre-trial motions.  After the ten-week trial, the court held that Pratt had made three false statements in a 1983 offer and imposed a $7.1 million statutory penalty, but the court rejected the government’s $600 million damages theory and held that actual damages were zero.  

On remand after the first appeal, the trial court reversed its trial judgment, accepted the government’s damages theory, and awarded $664 million.  On Pratt’s appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed, held that the trial record established that the government failed to prove any damages, and remanded to the trial court again. See U.S. v. United Technologies, 782 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2015). 

On the second remand, the government abandoned its damages theory, and in June 2016 the trial court entered final judgment awarding a total of $11.1 million ($1.2 million in disgorgement, $2.8 million in interest, and the $7.1 million penalty).  See U.S. v. United Technologies, 2016 WL 3141569, __ F. Supp. 3d __ (S.D. Ohio 2016).  The government declined to appeal, finally ending the case.

The Bartlit Beck team included Jeff Hall, Fred Bartlit, Mike Valaik, Hamilton Hill, JB Heaton, and Dan Taylor.

Bartlit Beck Wins Important ANDA Trial For Bayer & Merck KGaA
Merck & Cie, et. al. v. Watson Labs (Beyaz®/Safyral® Litigation) (D. Del. 2015)

Bartlit Beck lawyers Adam Mortara, J. Scott McBride, Rebecca Horwitz, and Faye Paul scored an important trial victory for Bayer AG, Bayer HealthCare, and Merck & Cie in the Hatch-Waxman case against Watson Laboratories regarding Bayer oral contraceptive products Beyaz® and Safyral®, which contain Merck & Cie’s advanced folate, Metafolin®.

Beyaz® and Safyral® are oral contraceptives developed and marketed by Bayer and are under patent protection until 2022.  The oral contraceptives contain Metafolin®, a singularly stable crystal conformation (polymorph) of 5-methyl-(6S)-tetrahydrofolate.  U.S. Patent No. 6,441,168 covers Metafolin® and was the only patent at issue. Watson challenged the ’168 patent on three separate technical grounds (anticipation, obviousness, and written description) and also challenged it under the § 102(b) on-sale bar. 

The Court’s opinion ruling in favor of Merck on all issues can be found at Merck & Cie v. Watson Laboratories, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2015 WL 5117614 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2015). Watson  appealed Bartlit Beck’s victory to the Federal Circuit on only one theory: the on-sale bar.  Oral argument is set for February.

Swanson and Gallagher Win Major Trial Victory for Clark
Clark Material Handling Co. v. Toyota Material Handling U.S.A., Inc. (W.D.N.C. 2015)

Brian Swanson and Sean Gallagher won a major jury trial for Clark Material Handling Company.  Clark sued Toyota in the Western District of North Carolina for tortious interference and various state-law claims, alleging that Toyota had improperly coerced a regional forklift dealer and long-time distributor of Toyota machines, parts, and services into terminating its newly formed dealer relationship with Clark.  Bartlit Beck led a two-week jury trial, in which the jury found for Clark on all claims and awarded several million dollars in damages to Clark.  Bartlit Beck’s post-trial motions convinced the district court to treble damages and award attorney’s fees, which nearly quadrupled Clark’s damages award.  The case settled while on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

Grimsley, Hughes, Hacker and Taylor Win Major Trial Victory for Tyco
Core-Mark v. Sonitrol (Adams Cty, Colo. 2014)

Sean Grimsley and John Hughes, along with Kat Hacker and Dan Taylor, recently hit it out of the park in a damages trial for Tyco. A prior jury found that a former Tyco subsidiary, Sonitrol, had willfully and wantonly breached its burglar-alarm monitoring contract in 2002 by failing to detect three burglars who broke into plaintiff Core-Mark’s warehouse, looted it for hours and then lit fires that ultimately destroyed the warehouse. Bartlit Beck took over the case shortly before trial after the Court of Appeals had remanded for a new trial on damages only. At trial, plaintiffs sought over $23 million in damages, claiming over $50 million with pre-judgment interest. Despite the fact that the jury in the previous trial had given plaintiffs all damages they asked for and despite the fact that the Court precluded Sonitrol from calling a damages expert, the jury in the re-trial awarded plaintiffs only $2.75 million in theft-related damages, the damages number Sonitrol sponsored. The jury awarded no fire-related damages. It was a major victory for Tyco and the Bartlit Beck team.  

Bartlit Beck Wins CAFA Appeal in 7th Circuit for Northwestern Mutual
LaPlant v. Northwestern Mutual (2012)

In LaPlant v. Northwestern Mutual the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued an important ruling involving jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The state trial court had certified a class action and then ruled for plaintiffs after a bench trial which our firm did not handle.  Plaintiffs moved the state court to expand its rulings to a nationwide class, and we removed the case to federal district court.  After removal to federal court, plaintiffs sought remand to state court which the federal district court granted on the ground that the case fell within the corporate governance exception to the Act because the case solely involved the internal affairs of our client and because Wisconsin law governed all claims.

We successfully petitioned the 7th Circuit to allow and appeal and, after briefing and argument, the Court held for our client on all grounds.  David Boies argued the appeal for plaintiffs.  Adam Hoeflich, Sean Grimsley and John Hughes represented Northwestern Mutual.

Click here to read 7th Circuit Opinion

Click here for audio of Oral Argument

Click here for the American Lawyer article

Click here to read Bloomberg article

Bartlit Beck Wins Summary Judgment for United Technologies in Patent Infringement Suit
Rolls Royce PLC v. United Technologies Corporation (d/b/a Pratt & Whitney) (2011)

Bartlit Beck was lead counsel for United Technologies and its Pratt & Whitney division in an alleged multi-billion dollar patent case brought by Rolls-Royce in the Eastern District of Virginia.  The technology at issue related to the jet engines (particularly the fan blades) used on the world’s largest airplane, the Airbus A380.  Rolls-Royce sought almost $4 billion in damages and an injunction preventing further sales of the accused engines, which are sold by a joint venture between United Technologies and General Electric.  The Court granted summary judgment in United Technologies' favor finding that United Technologies' engine did not infringe the Rolls-Royce patent. 

This ruling was the culmination of a string of successes in which United Technologies also won summary judgment of no willful infringement (by which Rolls-Royce was seeking treble damages up to over $11 billion) and the Court struck Rolls-Royce’s damages theory.  In the ruling precluding Rolls-Royce’s damages theory, the Court found that Rolls-Royce’s multi-billion dollar “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.  [Rolls-Royce’s expert’s] report 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.”  Rolls-Royce also claimed that a dozen other United Technologies-related engines infringed Rolls-Royce's patent.  United Technologies won summary judgment of non-infringement on all of those engines as well (other than a few nascent engines on which there were no issues because United Technologies pointed out that the final design would not infringe Rolls-Royce’s patent).  

The Bartlit Beck team included Phil Beck, Jason Peltz, Chris Lind, Mike Valaik, Hamilton Hill, Andrew MacNally, and Ben Whiting, and Bartlit Beck’s co-counsel was Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.

Click here for article from American Lawyer.

Click here for article from Thomson Reuters.

Click here for article from Law 360.

Click here for article from Bloomberg. 

Click here for the court's damages decision.

Click here for the court's summary judgment decision.

Cert denied: Bartlit Beck Plays Key Role in End to Federal Cipro Antitrust Class Actions
Bayer Cipro Antitrust (2005)

On March 7, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, bringing to an end an eleven-year battle between Bartlit Beck client Bayer and antitrust class plaintiffs arising from a patent settlement concerning Bayer’s popular antibiotic, Cipro.  Before the Second Circuit and in the Supreme Court, Bayer’s position was opposed by a host of governmental and private amici curiae – including the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, thirty-four state attorneys general, and an assortment of consumer advocates.  Nonetheless, the Supreme Court denied certiorari from the Second Circuit’s ruling in favor of Bayer, thereby disposing of the entire federal multi-district litigation (“MDL”) alleging billions in damages.

Since 2000, Bartlit Beck has acted as lead trial counsel and national coordinating co-counsel for Bayer (along with Jones Day) in over 40 nationwide antitrust class actions involving cutting-edge issues at the intersection of the patent and antitrust law.  Bartlit Beck attorneys Fred Bartlit, Peter Bensinger, Jr. and Michael Valaik comprised the Bartlit Beck antitrust team. 

Bartlit Beck Prevails For DuPont In Benlate Case
Super Helechos, et al. v. DuPont (2009)

Bartlit Beck represented DuPont in 10-week Miami jury trial of product liability claims involving DuPont's Benlate fungicide. Plaintiffs, 27 Costa Rican ferneries, claimed $396 million damages. The trial court entered directed verdicts for DuPont on all claims of the largest plaintiffs (constituting 60% of plaintiffs' total claimed damages). The jury awarded other plaintiffs a small fraction of amounts sought. In December 2009, the Florida court of appeals (1) affirmed the directed verdicts for DuPont on claims of the largest plaintiffs, and (2) reversed all jury verdicts for other plaintiffs due to numerous trial court errors, and remanded for new individual trials. Representing DuPont were Jeff Hall, Jason Peltz, Karma Giulianelli and Andrew Baak of Bartlit Beck, with Shook, Hardy & Bacon and Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein.

Click here to read the appellate court's opinion.

Click here to read related article.

Click here for Daily Business Review article.

Bartlit Beck Wins $56 Million for Inventor Against Ford
Jacob Krippelz, Sr. v. Ford Motor Company (2009)

Mark Ferguson, Adam Mortara, Hamilton Hill, and Martha Pacold won a $23 million patent infringement jury verdict against Ford Motor Company on behalf of individual inventor Jacob Krippelz, Sr., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  In a subsequent bench trial on willfulness, the Court found willful patent infringement and awarded Mr. Krippelz an additional $33 million in enhanced damages and prejudgment interest.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins Appeal For Sunstar In Longstanding Trademark Dispute Over Sunstar's VO5 Brand
Sunstar, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co. (2009)

Bartlit Beck lawyer Mark Ouweleen convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to vacate a three-year old judgment against Sunstar.  The judgment would have prevented Sunstar from using the Japanese VO5 brand on its best-selling hair-care products -- a $100 million line of business. 

Click here to read Judge Posner's opinion.

Click here to listen to the oral argument. 

Click here for more information about this case.

Bartlit Beck Wins Second of Back-To-Back Complete Defense Victories for Ernst & Young
In re Metropolitan Securities Litigation (2009)

After a four-week trial, an arbitration Panel consisting of three former federal judges found in favor of Bartlit Beck's client Ernst & Young in an accountant's malpractice claim brought by the bankrupt estate of Metropolitan Mortgage & Securities Co.  Metropolitan, a $2 billion investment, real estate and insurance conglomerate, collapsed in 2004 after suffering liquidity problems and a fraud by its senior management.  This is the second successful defense of E&Y by Bartlit Beck in claims stemming from the Metropolitan bankruptcy.  Together, the claimants in the two arbitrations sought over $300 million in damages.  Metropolitan was represented by Susman Godfrey. 

Bartlit Beck Defeats $5 Billion Class Action Claim
In re Teflon Products Liability Litigation (2009)

Adam Hoeflich, Sean Gallagher and Kaspar Stoffelmayr secured the final dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims asserted in these putative class actions against DuPont.  The plaintiffs had alleged consumer fraud and other claims based on the purchase of cookware coated with DuPont nonstick coatings, and at one point stated they would seek $5 billion in damages.

Click here for Am Law Litigation Daily article.

Bartlit Beck Successfully Defends Pratt & Whitney Against $624 Million Claim
United States v. United Technologies Corp. (2008)

Bartlit Beck's Fred Bartlit, Jeff Hall, Mike Valaik, and Hamilton Hill represented United Technologies in a 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.  The case is currently on appeal in front of the 6th Circuit.

Fred Bartlit, Peter Bensinger and Mike Valaik Win Federal Circuit Appeal on Behalf of Bayer in Leading Patent-Antitrust Case, In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation
Bayer Cipro Antitrust (2005)

In Re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2008-107 in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:00-MDL-1383 (Judge David G. Trager).

Bartlit Beck represents Bayer AG and Bayer Corporation in nationwide class action antitrust litigation related to Bayer's settlement of patent litigation against Barr Laboratories.

Bayer owns the patent on Cipro, one of the world's leading antibiotics.  Barr brought a generic challenge to the Cipro patent and Bayer initiated "Hatch-Waxman" litigation in the Southern District of New York.  On the eve of trial, Bayer paid Barr to settle and thereafter submitted the Cipro patent to the U.S. Patent Office for re-examination.  The patent reissued and Bayer defeated three later generic challenges.

The antitrust plaintiffs consist of a class of direct purchasers of Cipro (like drug store chains) and a class of indirect purchasers (consumers).  They allege that it is an antitrust violation for a brand to pay a generic challenger to settle Hatch-Waxman litigation. 

The MDL proceeding was before Judge David G. Trager in the Eastern District of New York.  Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the ground that Bayer's settlement payment to Barr was a per se antitrust violation.  Judge Trager ruled in Bayer's favor and adopted Bayer's analytical framework for analyzing Hatch-Waxman settlements.  Thereafter, the Eleventh and Second Circuits adopted Judge Trager's reasoning.  Following his per se ruling, Judge Trager invited Bayer to file a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Trager granted.

Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit, which transferred the Indirect Plaintiffs' appeal to the Federal Circuit.  (The Second Circuit retained the Direct Purchasers' appeal.  The Direct Purchaser appeal in the Second Circuit is fully briefed and awaiting argument.)

On October 15, 2008, the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Trager's decision and adopted his reasoning.  The decision represents a complete victory for Bayer in the Federal Circuit. 

Bartlit Beck Secures Sensormatic's Patents, Trade Secrets with Complete Plaintiff-Side Security Tag Verdict
Sensormatic Electronics Corp. v. The TAG Company US LLC et al. (2008)

Mark Levine, Mark Ouweleen, and Sean Grimsley won a patent infringement lawsuit for Sensormatic Electronics Corporation against The Tag Company US LLC and Phenix Label Company.  Sensormatic's patents, on technology used in electronic article surveillance, were issued in 1998 and 2000.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins Complete Defense Verdict in $400 Million Patent Case
Applied Medical v. United States Surgical (2008)

Fred Bartlit, Glen Summers, and Sean Grimsley won a complete defense verdict for the U.S. Surgical division of Covidien Ltd. in a landmark patent infringement case.  After a five-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the jury unanimously found that U.S. Surgical has not infringed a medical device patent held by Applied Medical Resources Corporation.  Applied had sought an injunction and over $300 million in damages (including interest and treble damages).

Click here for news article.

Click here for additional news article.

Click here for additional news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins Complete Defense Verdict in Cook County Jury Trial of 27 Firefighters' Hearing Loss Claims
Rago v. Federal Signal (2008)

Phil Beck, Jeff Hall, Libby Thompson and Mike Valaik won a complete defense verdict for Federal Signal in a Cook County jury trial of claims of 27 Chicago firefighters who alleged that Federal Signal sirens caused hearing loss.  After a 5-week trial involving 70 witnesses, the jury returned unanimous defense verdicts on all claims of all 27 plaintiffs, after deliberating for less than 2 hours.

Click here for Press Release 1.

Click here for Press Release 2.

Bartlit Beck Wins Major Patent Defense Victory for Static Control in Printer Cartridge Dispute
Lexmark v. Static Control (2007)

Joe Smith, Allison W. Freedman, Alison Wheeler and Jennifer Heisinger defeated Lexmark in a headline-grabbing patent infringement case brought by Lexmark in the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Lexmark accused Static Control, the world's leading supplier of replacement parts for laser printer toner cartridges, of inducing thousands of its customers to infringe more than 150 patent claims asserted by Lexmark.  After a six-week trial, the jury not only found that Static Control did not induce any patent infringement but went on to find that Lexmark had misused its patents and engaged in anti-competitive behavior.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins 5 Jury Verdicts in Vioxx Trials
Vioxx Trials (2006)

In late 2005 and 2006, Phil Beck and his Bartlit Beck team tried all five Vioxx trials tried in federal court (New Orleans).  Beck and his partners Mark OuweleenHamilton Hill and Adam Mortara won complete defense verdicts in four of the five trials.  Bartlit Beck also won a complete defense verdict in the only state court Vioxx case the firm tried (Los Angeles).

Click here for news article.

Click here for additional news article.

Bartlit Beck Defeats Product Liability Claim Where Plaintiff Sought $172 Million Plus Punitive Damages
TicoFrut v. DuPont (2005)

Phil Beck, Jason Peltz and Karma Giulianelli won a complete defense verdict for DuPont in this Benlate products liability trial in Florida state court.  Before our involvement, DuPont had had some difficulty in these kinds of cases in this jurisdiction.  This time, plaintiffs' lawyers sought over $170 million in compensatory damages plus punitive damages, but after a six-week trial, the jury took only 5 hours before returning a complete defense verdict.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins Back-to-Back Trials Against Honeywell and Kirkland & Ellis
Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand (2005)

Bartlit Beck partners Mark Levine and Chris Lind successfully defended Hamilton Sundstrand in a patent infringement trial in Delaware.  Honeywell alleged that Hamilton Sundstrand infringed a patent relating to the starting of an Auxiliary Power Unit for an airplane.  Honeywell had sought $135 million in damages (including interest and treble damages).  The jury found that Hamilton Sundstrand did not infringe the patent, and that the patent was invalid.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins Summary Judgment, Defeating $10 Billion Antitrust Claims Against Bayer Corp.
Bayer Cipro Antitrust (2005)

In the country's most watched patent/antitrust case, Fred Bartlit, Peter Bensinger and Mike Valaik secured a complete dismissal of class action plaintiffs' $10 billion antitrust case in the MDL action pending in the Eastern District of New York.  Plaintiffs' claims related to Bayer's 1997 settlement of a generic drug maker's "Hatch-Waxman" challenge to the validity of Bayer's patent on the blockbuster antibiotic "Cipro."  Antitrust plaintiffs alleged that it was an antitrust violation for Bayer to pay to settle the case even though the generic admitted infringement.  Plaintiffs claimed that consumers were entitled to damages because but for the settlement, they would have paid less for Cipro.  Judge Trager granted Bayer's motion for summary judgment finding that it is not an antitrust violation for the brand to pay to settle on terms within the exclusionary effect of the patent.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins Two High-Profile Pharmaceutical Cases for Bayer Corp.
Hardy v. Bayer & Svoboda v. Bayer (2005)

Don Scott and Les Houtz won complete defense verdicts for Bayer in these two products liability trials in which plaintiffs alleged PPA (phenylpropanolamine) in Alka Seltzer Plus cold medicine caused their strokes.  These were among the first PPA cases to be tried and there are hundreds pending.  The four-week Hardy trial was in Utah state court and the jury rendered its verdict within 24 hours of getting the case.  The two-week Svoboda trial was in Florida state court in Sanford near Daytona Beach and the jury took less than two hours to reach its verdict.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Defeats Billion Dollar Claim, Wins Jury Trial for Forstmann Little
Connecticut v. Forstmann Little & Co. (2004)

Fred Bartlit and Hamilton Hill defeated a claim against the investment firm Forstmann Little in this highly watched trial in which the Treasurer of the State of Connecticut sought damages for investment losses to the state pension fund. After a five-week trial, although the jury found breaches of fiduciary duties and contract, the jury agreed with Forstmann Little’s affirmative defenses as the state knew of the investments at issue and had approved of them at the time.  Because the jury did not find Forstmann Little liable, it did not even reach the issue of damages. 

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins Defense Verdict in High-Stakes Patent Infringement Case Involving Medical Devices
Applied Medical v U.S. Surgical (2004)

Fred Bartlit and Glen Summers successfully defended a Tyco subsidiary in the Central District of California by winning a summary judgment of invalidity in this patent infringement action involving medical devices used in laparoscopic surgery.  Tyco hired Bartlit Beck to take over for an international New York-based firm after an adverse summary judgment that one of the asserted patents was valid and infringed.  Our firm assumed the defense against two other asserted patents and invalidated them.

Fred and Glen also successfully defeated a preliminary injunction motion based on findings of infringement related to other patents before our firm's involvement in the case.  As a result of favorable claim construction we obtained in the injunction proceeding, plaintiff abandoned all but one asserted claim.  In March 2005, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as to that last remaining claim, resulting in a complete defense judgment for our client. 

Bartlit Beck Prevails in First Baycol Trial for Bayer
Haltom v. Bayer Corp. (2003)

Phil Beck won a complete defense verdict for Bayer in this first Baycol products liability trial set in plaintiff's chosen venue, Corpus Christi, Texas.  Plaintiff sought over $500 million, and the case was closely watched for likely effect on the thousands of other Baycol cases pending throughout the country.  Bayer's stock price went up 39% on news of the victory.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Defends Patent on Blockbuster Antibiotic Cipro
Bayer v. Carlsbad (2002)

Fred Bartlit and Mark Levine successfully defended Bayer's patent on the blockbuster drug "Cipro" against this "Hatch-Waxman" challenge to the patent's validity brought by a generic manufacturer, Carlsbad.  After a 12-day bench trial, Judge Brewster of the Federal Court in San Diego rejected the generic challenger's claim that the patented invention was obvious.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins $96 Million Verdict For GMAC In Jury Trial Against Susman Godfrey
Residential Funding v. DeGeorge (2001)

Phil Beck and Jeff Hall won a $96 million jury verdict for Residential Funding in this breach of contract case in Federal Court in New Haven, Connecticut.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins $15 Million for Wrongly Convicted Man
James Newsome v. McNally & McCabe (2001)

Phil Beck and Sean Gallagher won James Newsome a $15 million jury verdict in Federal Court in Chicago for his wrongful conviction of a crime he did not commit.  Bartlit Beck showed the jury that detectives had rigged the police lineup in which witnesses falsely identified Mr. Newsome as the murderer. 

Bartlit Beck Wins $30 Million Summary Judgment for ABB, Inc. in Patent Indemnity Dispute Arising Out of the Sale and Purchase of a Refractory Business
ABB v. Imetal (2001)

Mark Ferguson and Mark Ouweleen won a summary judgment of $30 million in the Southern District of New York for our client ABB in connection with defendant Imetal's breach of contract in the sale of a business. 

Don Scott Wins the First Lead Paint Products Liability Case to go to Trial
Parker v. NL Industries (2000)

Don Scott and Libby Thompson won a complete defense verdict for NL in the first "lead paint" products liability trial brought against the paint industry.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins Historic Presidential Election Contest Trial in Bush v. Gore
Gore v. Bush (2000)

Fred Bartlit and Phil Beck represented George W. Bush in the presidential election contest trial before Judge Sauls in Tallahassee, Florida.  The one-week bench trial was televised and resulted in a judgment in favor of Bush.  Famed Harvard Law Professor and TV commentator Arthur Miller remarked, "watching Phil Beck cross examine is like watching someone carve with an Exacto knife."  For more reactions to Bartlit Beck's role in the Presidential Election Trial, click here

Bartlit Beck Turns Tide of HIV Claims by Winning Sample Trials
Alpha Therapeutic Blood Factor Concentrate Litigation (1999)

Phil Beck, Lin Brenza and Adam Hoeflich defended Alpha in a nation-wide series of lawsuits involving claims of AIDS transmission to hemophiliacs through blood factor concentrate marketed by Alpha and other fractionators and used by hemophiliacs to control bleeding.  Their work culminated in the successful defense of Alpha in a 4 month trial in Louisiana brought by the family of a deceased hemophiliac.

Bartlit Beck Wins $165 Million Judgment in Patent Infringement Case
Viskase v. American National Can (1999)

Phil Beck and Chris Lind won $165 million in patent infringement damages in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of plaintiff Viskase, who had a patent on shrink wrap used in the meat packing industry.  Viskase hired us after the trial court threw out a jury verdict in its favor because an expert gave false testimony at trial.  Our firm moved for summary judgment seeking reinstatement of the original damages award and enhanced damages for willful infringement.  The Court granted the motion and the case settled shortly thereafter.  At the time, the award reportedly was one of the largest patent infringement judgments ever.

Bartlit Beck Wins Appeal, Court Sets Aside $54 Million Verdict
SK Hand Tool v. Dresser

Phil Beck and Peter Bensinger took over this case for Dresser after it had lost a state court trial in Chicago in which the jury awarded plaintiffs $54 million on account of Dresser's fraud in the sale of a business ($4 million compensatory and $50 million punitive).  The appellate court remanded for a new trial on compensatory damages.  On remand, the jury awarded $1 in damages.  The trial judge then remitted the $50 million punitive award down to $650,000. 

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins Summary Judgment Preserving Client’s Indemnity Rights
Abbott Labs v. Alpha Therapeutic Corp. (1998)

Lin Brenza and Elizabeth Thompson represented Alpha in a multi-million dollar indemnity dispute arising out of a corporate acquisition agreement with Abbott.  They defeated on summary judgment and on appeal Abbott's claim that the indemnity dispute had been settled through a subsequent agreement. 

Bartlit Beck Scores a Complete Victory in $300 Million Products Liability Case
Howray v. Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center (1997)

Phil Beck and Adam Hoeflich score a complete victory in this $300 million products liability case.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Defeats Vehicle Navigation Patent Claims for NavTech
Etak v. Zexel and NavTech (1997)

Mark Ferguson won a summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for our client NavTech in the Northern District of California.  Etak sued for patent infringement on technology related to computerized in-vehicle navigation and display systems.  Judge Conti entered judgment of non-infringement or invalidity on 91 of 92 asserted claims and the case settled favorably thereafter. 

Jury Hands Bartlit Beck Complete Victory in Dispute Over Key Chemistry Patent and License Rights
Kaiser Aluminum v. Phosphate Engineering Co. (1997)

Fred Bartlit and Lin Brenza took over this case in the middle of discovery to defend Phosphate Engineering and Construction Company's (PECO) rights under its own patent and technology relating to a novel chemical processes for manufacturing a useful chemical (hydrofluoric acid) from a waste product generated by phosphate plants.  After an 8 day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict fully affirming PECO's rights in the technology.  Further, although PECO was defendant, the jury awarded PECO substantial damages against Kaiser.  The verdict and damage award was successfully defended on appeal. 

Bartlit Beck Defeats Antitrust Challenge to Pratt & Whitney
Chromalloy v. United Technologies (1996)

Fred Bartlit, Don Scott and Mark Levine defended United Technologies in this Texas state court antitrust action in which a company that handled repairs of aircraft engines alleged UT attempted to monopolize the engine repair market.  Plaintiff Chromalloy is reported to have spent $50 million pursuing this case but came up short when the jury awarded no damages even though finding an attempted monopolization.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins Complete Defense Verdict in Fraud Case Involving Stealth Boat Technology
Technology Innovations v. United Technologies (1996)

Phil Beck and Peter Bensinger won a complete defense verdict for United Technologies in this cloak and dagger fraud case in Florida state court.  Individual plaintiff, Bob Murphy, claimed United Technologies defrauded him when they introduced him to an Australian company that might help him and his partner develop his prize invention:  a stealth boat built on the frame of a jet-ski which could not be detected by radar.

Bartlit Beck Wins Complete Defense Verdict In Class Action Jury Trial
Wagner v. Anzon (NL Industries) (1994)

Phil Beck and Jeff Hall won a complete defense verdict for NL Industries in this toxic tort products liability case brought in Pennsylvania state court in Philadelphia.  Class Plaintiffs alleged they had diminished IQs as a result of exposure to lead from defendant's lead paint plant and also sought cleanup costs and punitive damages.

Click here for news article.

Bartlit Beck Wins Non-Infringement and Invalidity Judgments on Medical Diagnostics Patent
Ortho v. Miles (1994)

Fred Bartlit and Mark Ferguson won this patent jury trial in White Plains, NY by establishing that our client Miles did not infringe and that the patents in suit were invalid.  Ortho's patents concerned a blood analysis technology that automatically counts and sorts blood cells.  As the jury found no infringement and the patents invalid, the jury did not consider Ortho's $150 million damages claim.

Click here for news article.