Peter B. Bensinger, Jr.
Peter is a nationally recognized pioneer in the use of legal technology in the courtroom, which led the American Lawyer to dub him the “most wired lawyer in America.” While he handles a wide variety of complex commercial cases, Peter has had a focus in intellectual property and pharmaceutical antitrust. He was co-lead counsel for Bayer in the leading “reverse payment” patent-antitrust case, In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, in which Bayer prevailed in the Federal Courts. Although Peter majored in English, he is known for his ability to explain complex science and technology to lay judges and juries. Representative cases have involved issues of chemistry, immunology, microbiology, injection molding, oral contraceptives, electromagnetic wave resistivity, motor oil, stealth boats, gasoline vapor recovery, and internet recommendation algorithms. Before law school, Peter trained in improv at Chicago’s Second City with founder Paul Sills and then was an actor in New York City with appearances on Saturday Night Live and All My Children. While an actor, Peter was called for jury duty on a cocaine conspiracy trial when his father was the head of the DEA. But the defense lawyer put him on the jury since he was an actor. Post-conviction, the judge debriefed the jury and encouraged Peter to go to law school. Following his associate training at Paul, Weiss in New York, Peter returned to his hometown of Chicago, where he became a featured performer in the Chicago Bar Association’s annual musical satire, appearing as Mayor Richard M. Daley and as President Clinton in the year of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. At Bartlit Beck, Peter has responsibility for attorney professional development, performance review, and new lawyer orientation. He offers several unique CLE presentations: “Dealing with Jerks – using Aikido and active listening to deal with difficult opposing counsel;” “Presentation Stagecraft – using fundamental theatre techniques to enhance connection and persuasiveness" (visual focus, body language, vocal technique, staging to control audience focus, and particular strategies for briefing the C-Suite); and “Enhancing Ensemble Performance: Using Stagecraft To Facilitate Connection And Inclusion,” a new CLE that satisfies the diversity and inclusion requirement.
Cases tried or otherwise taken to judgment
Confidential AAA Arbitration (2016)
Together with Phil Beck, represented a Fortune 100 company in a confidential, multi-billion dollar dispute. The two-week arbitration hearing included testimony from numerous senior executives and expert witnesses. Obtained complete victory for our client.
Confidential AAA arbitration (2015)
Lead counsel for manufacturer in a two-week AAA arbitration hearing before a panel of three arbitrators. The hearing involved opening statements, cross examinations (including cross without prior deposition), direct examinations, and closing arguments. The proceedings and outcome are confidential.
Chicago Loop Parking v. City of Chicago (AAA arbitration 2012)
Lead counsel pro bono for the City of Chicago in an arbitration that Chicago Loop Parking (Morgan Stanley) brought against the City in connection with the Millennium Park Garages. In 2006, Morgan Stanley paid the City $563 million in exchange for a 99-year concession to operate the garages under Millennium Park and Grant Park on the City’s lakeshore. Morgan Stanley filed a claim in arbitration for $200 million related to the City’s permitting the Aqua building (North of Millennium Park) to accept parkers whose destinations are outside of the Aqua building itself. The arbitration hearing was held in October 2012 before a panel of three arbitrators. The Panel rejected Morgan Stanley's claim for $200 million and awarded $50.4 million in damages plus prejudgment interest.
Millennium Labs. v. Ameritox (District of Maryland 2012)
Lead counsel for defendant Ameritox in a Lanham Act false advertising case concerning Ameritox’s advertisements for its Rx Guardian urine drug testing services. After four-weeks of trial and argument in Baltimore before Judge Benson Legg, and including a two-week trial before an advisory jury, the parties entered into a consent order to end the dispute. Immediately thereafter, however, Millennium issued a press release with misleading statements and Ameritox obtained ex-parte a temporary restraining order that very day. Following overnight briefing, the Court converted the restraining order into an order of preliminary injunction. Millennium appealed and the case settled.
Express Scripts v. Walgreen Co. (Northern District of Illinois and American Arbitration Association 2011)
Lead counsel for Walgreens in an action that pharmacy benefit manager Express Scripts brought in Federal Court seeking to enjoin Walgreens’ “I choose Walgreens” communications and website campaign. Walgreens and Express Scripts are parties to a contract that expired at the end of 2011. When their contract renewal negotiations failed, Walgreens began communicating to Walgreens’ patients whose insurance coverage is administered by Express Scripts that Walgreens would not likely be a part of the Express Scripts pharmacy network in 2012. Express Scripts sued to shut down such communications. Walgreens successfully moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties' contract and a preliminary injunction hearing ensued before an AAA arbitrator. On Sunday, October 16, 2011, the arbitrator in the Express Scripts–Walgreens matter 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.
In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation (Eastern District of New York 2005; Federal Circuit 2008; Superior Court of California, San Diego 2009; Second Circuit 2010, 4th District California Court of Appeal 2011)
Together with Fred Bartlit, lead counsel for Bayer AG and Bayer Corporation in nationwide class action antitrust litigation in connection with Bayer’s settlement of patent litigation against Barr Laboratories. Bayer owns the patent on Cipro, one of the world’s leading antibiotics. Barr sought approval from the FDA for a generic version of Cipro and, pursuant to the “Hatch-Waxman” statute, Bayer sued Barr in the Southern District of New York. On the eve of trial in January 1997, Bayer and Barr settled with Bayer making payments amounting to $398 million. Bayer defeated three later generic challenges (Bartlit Beck lawyers Fred Bartlit and Mark Levine represented Bayer).
The antitrust plaintiffs contend that it was an antitrust violation for Bayer to pay Barr to settle Hatch-Waxman litigation. The MDL proceeding was before Judge David G. Trager in the Eastern District of New York. Wrote Bayer’s brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment that Bayer’s payment was a per se antitrust violation. Judge Trager ruled in Bayer’s favor and adopted Bayer’s analytical framework for analyzing Hatch-Waxman settlements (261 F. Supp. 2d 188). Thereafter, the Eleventh and Second Circuit adopted Judge Trager’s reasoning (402 F.3d 1056; 466 F.3d 187).
Following the per se ruling, Judge Trager invited Bayer to file a motion for summary judgment. Wrote Bayer’s briefs, and Judge Trager granted Bayer’s motion (363 F. Supp. 2d 514). Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit, which transferred the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (the consumers’) appeal to the Federal Circuit due to an alleged state-law Walker Process-type claim based on fraud on the Patent Office. Wrote Bayer’s appellate briefs in the Second and Federal Circuits. Both Circuits affirmed Judge Trager’s decision and adopted his reasoning (544 F.3d 1323 (Fed Cir. 2008); 604 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2010)). The Supreme Court denied certiorari in both appeals, and the MDL federal litigation has concluded in Bayer's favor.
Wrote Bayer’s briefs and conducted oral argument in support of Bayer's motion for summary judgment in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. Judge Strauss granted Bayer’s motion, which the California Court of Appeal (4th District) affirmed in a unanimous opinion. Wrote Bayer's appellate brief and argued the appeal. Bayer settled the California case shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in FTC v. Actavis, in which the high court reversed the federal “scope of the patent” test that Judge Trager first articulated in the Cipro case.
Bayer Schering v. Barr (District of New Jersey 2007; Federal Circuit 2009)
Lead counsel for Bayer Schering in ANDA IV “Hatch Waxman” litigation against Barr Laboratories. Barr sought to market a generic version of Bayer Schering’s oral contraceptive Yasmin®, which was the leading brand oral contraceptive in the world. Bayer Schering sued Barr in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for infringement of a Bayer Schering formulation patent covering Yasmin®. Barr stipulated to infringement. On December 4, 2007, Judge Peter Sheridan completed a bench trial on Barr’s invalidity challenge. He found the patent invalid due to obviousness (2008 WL 628592). Barr’s CEO, Bruce Downey, told the Investors Business Daily that “[t]he unique thing about the Yasmin trial is that it was tried by the best guy trying cases for the generics industry and the best guy trying cases for the branded industry. So it was a heavyweight fight. It was like Ali and Frazier.” Argued appeal before the Federal Circuit Judges Newman, Mayer and Friedman. In a 2-1 opinion, with Judge Newman dissenting, the majority affirmed Judge Sheridan’s “obvious to try” ruling (2009 WL 2385095).
Morgan Stanley v. Chubb, et al. (Superior Court of New Jersey 2005)
Lead counsel for Morgan Stanley as the insured in insurance coverage litigation in New Jersey state court. An investment advisor fraudulently instructed Morgan Stanley to sell off a client portfolio and to deliver the proceeds to entities associated with the late Robert Maxwell. The client sued Morgan Stanley for the resulting loss and the case settled. Morgan Stanley sought coverage pursuant to an Electronic Computer Crimes Policy that it purchased from defendant insurance companies. The trial court granted the insurers’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the policy covered only fraud by an imposter, not fraud by the investment advisor. Argued appeal and obtained reversal and remand (2005 WL 3242234). The case settled thereafter.
Weilert v. Baan Company (Northern District of Illinois 2004)
Lead counsel for Baan Company in a $100 million stock option -- breach of contract action brought against it in the Northern District of Illinois by Ronald Weilert, former CEO of Baan’s American operations. Weilert alleged that Baan’s offer letter granted him a guaranteed option on 2% of Baan. He alleged that under the terms of his offer letter, continued employment was not a condition to the vesting of his option, which was subject to Baan’s standard five-year vesting schedule. Baan terminated Weilert after eight months on the job and before Baan implemented its company stock plan. On the eve of trial, the Court asked Baan to file a cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court later ruled in Baan’s favor, granting summary judgment against the plaintiff. The case settled thereafter.
Fix v. Quantum (Northern District of Illinois 2004)
Lead counsel for Quantum Industrial Partners, a Soros holding company that owned Outboard Marine Company, in connection with a breach of contract action brought against it by Outboard Marine’s CEO, Roger Fix. Fix contended that his employment contract entitled him to a $5 million equity upside payment in the event of bankruptcy on the ground that the sale of assets in bankruptcy was a change in control that triggered his upside payment. Fix won summary judgment in the trial court. Argued appeal in the Seventh Circuit before Judges Ripple, Manion and Evans. The appellate court affirmed (374 F.3d 549).
SK Hand Tool v. Dresser (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 1998)
Together with Phil Beck, represented defendant Dresser on remand for a trial on damages only. In a first trial that another firm handled, the jury awarded plaintiffs $4 million in compensatory and $50 million in punitive damages for fraud in the sale of Dresser’s hand tool division. Dresser hired Bartlit Beck to handle the post-trial motion and appeal. The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reversed the damages awards and remanded for a new trial on damages only. On remand, the trial judge resurrected the original $50 million in punitive damages subject to post-trial review. At the trial on remand in October 1998, plaintiffs sought $40 million in compensatory damages. At trial, conducted key cross-examinations of plaintiff Corcoran and of plaintiffs’ damages expert. The jury awarded $1. Trial Judge Ken Gillis granted Dresser’s post-trial motion and reduced the original $50 million in punitive damages down to $650,000. Dresser paid the $650,001 judgment. Several articles chronicle Dresser’s success: Corporate Counsel Magazine (July 1999), The Trial Lawyer’s Guide (Vol. 42, No. 2 1998), and the National Law Journal (April 19, 1999) (honorable mention defense verdict for 1998).
Swiss Bank v. Dresser (Northern District of Illinois; Seventh Circuit 1998)
Lead counsel for Dresser Industries in a breach of contract action in which Swiss Bank alleged Dresser breached a stock warrant agreement. Judge James B. Zagel of the Northern District of Illinois granted Dresser’s motion to dismiss. Argued appeal to the Seventh Circuit before Judges Posner, Easterbrook and Evans. Affirmed, with opinion by Judge Posner (141 F.3d 689).
Murphy v. United Technologies (Circuit Court, Palm Beach, Florida 1996)
Together with Phil Beck, represented United Technologies in a fraud/tortious interference with prospective advantage suit concerning sale of plaintiff’s business, remote controlled stealth boats, to a third party. We tried the case to a jury in state court in Palm Beach County, Florida. Conducted direct and cross-examination of half of the witnesses. After the five week trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict. The National Law Journal reported the victory as one of the top defense verdicts for 1996.
Castrol v. Pennzoil (District of New Jersey; Third Circuit 1993)
Represented Castrol in a false advertising suit against Pennzoil. In its national ad campaign, Pennzoil claimed its oil outperformed all other leading oils against viscosity breakdown. Second-chaired bench trial before Judge Alfred M. Wolin in the District of New Jersey, who permanently enjoined Pennzoil’s ads because they were literally false. The Third Circuit affirmed (987 F.2d 939).
Castrol v. Quaker State (Southern District of New York; Second Circuit 1992)
Represented Castrol in a false advertising suit against Quaker State. In its national ad campaign, Quaker claimed that its oil protected better against wear during start-up. Second-chaired bench trial before Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. of the Southern District of New York, who found Quaker’s claim to be literally false. The Second Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction (977 F.2d 57) and Quaker abandoned the campaign.
Other representative cases
Intellectual Property Litigation
Cross Match Technologies, Inc. v. Integrated Biometrics, LLC (Northern District of Illinois 2017)
Co-lead counsel for Integrated Biometrics defending a patent infringement suit that competitor Cross Match filed in which it alleged that Integrated Biometrics’ fingerprint scanners infringe four Cross Match patents. The case is in early discovery.
Proprietect v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (Eastern District of Michigan 2013-2014)
Co-lead counsel for Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. in a patent infringement action regarding foam molding technology used in automotive seat manufacturing. Argued Markman Hearing and the case settled before discovery began in earnest.
Bayer HealthCare LLC v. Zoetis Inc. (formerly, Pfizer Inc.) (Northern District of Illinois 2012-2014)
Lead counsel for Bayer in a patent infringement action against Zoetis Inc., which is a spin-off of Pfizer’s animal health division. Bayer has asserted a patent covering Zoetis’s product ADVOCIN®, which the FDA has approved as a single high dose treatment for bovine respiratory disease. Bayer defeated Zoetis's (Pfizer's) invalidity challenge, winning summary judgment that Bayer's patent was valid as a matter of law. The parties settled the case thereafter.
Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Teva, et al. (Northern District of Illinois 2010)
Lead counsel for Bayer in Lanham Act false advertising and patent infringement case arising out of Teva's launch of a generic version of Bayer's YAZR oral contraceptive and product literature claiming that Teva's generic contains Bayer's patented betadex clathrate formulation. Bayer moved for a temporary restraining order on June 15, 2010. On June 16, the Court heard argument. Teva contended that Bayer could not show likelihood of success on the merits of its claims and that Bayer was not entitled to emergency relief. During proceedings, the Court read a tentative ruling finding that Bayer was entitled to a TRO. Teva agreed to remedial measures including a weekly e-mail blast for three months directed at pharmacists and calling attention to its false prescribing information. Court entered an agreed order regarding these remedial measures and required compliance reporting from Teva. The case has since settled.
Bayer HealthCare LLC v. Abbott Laboratories, et al. (District of Massachusetts 2010)
Lead counsel for Bayer in a patent infringement action Bayer brought for damages in connection with Abbott's flagship drug, Humira. Argued Markman Hearing and the case settled thereafter pending appeal of the district court's Markman rulings to the Federal Circuit.
Novartis v. Bayer HealthCare et al. (Eastern District of Texas 2009)
Lead counsel for Bayer HealthCare in patent infringement suit brought against it by Novartis in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. Novartis alleged that Bayer Healthcare’s Kogenate® product used in the treatment of hemophilia infringed a Novartis patent on recombinant Factor VIII concentrate. The case has settled.
Bayer Schering v. Watson and Sandoz (District of Nevada; Southern District of New York 2009)
Lead counsel for Bayer Schering in ANDA IV “Hatch Waxman” litigation against Watson Laboratories and Sandoz, Inc. Watson and Sandoz seek to market generic versions of Bayer Schering’s oral contraceptives Yasmin® and YAZ®, which have been the best-selling brand oral contraceptives in the United States. Bayer Schering sued Watson and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada for infringement of Bayer Schering patents covering the YAZ® 24-day pill-taking regimen. The Court granted Bayer's motion for summary judgment of infringement and validity. The generic defendants appealed to the Federal Circuit. Bayer Schering sued Watson and Sandoz in the Southern District of New York for infringement of a Bayer Schering patent covering Yasmin®. Bayer lost a motion to dismiss on the ground that the patented method was not described fully in the “indications and usage” section of the FDA approved label, and that description of the patented method in the clinical pharmacology section of the FDA approved label did not evidence FDA approval of the patented method. Argued appeal to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed.
Aventis Behring v. Bayer HealthCare and Bayer Corporation (District of Pennsylvania 2007)
Lead counsel for Bayer in this breach of contract and patent litigation in Pennsylvania state and federal court relating to recombinant Factor VIII concentrates used in the treatment of hemophilia. Obtained bifurcation for an early trial of Bayer’s license defense to Aventis’s infringement action, after which the parties reached a settlement.
GenProbe v. Bayer HealthCare and Bayer Corporation (Southern District of California 2006)
Lead counsel for Bayer HealthCare’s diagnostic division in patent infringement suits related to GenProbe patents on nucleic acid detection assays. The cases settled favorably to Bayer.
Pinpoint v. Amazon.com (Northern District of Illinois 2004-2005)
Lead counsel for owner of patents on personalization technology and intelligent recommender systems in patent suit against Amazon.com in the Northern District of Illinois. Conducted technical tutorial and Markman Hearings on the meaning of disputed patent claim terms before Judge Suzanne B. Conlon and before Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner (sitting as a trial judge by designation), when he revisited Judge Conlon’s construction. Deposed Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos. Pinpoint gave Amazon a statement of non-liability under two of the patents in suit following Judge Posner’s reversal of Judge Conlon’s claim construction.
Genlyte v. Acuity Brands (Northern District of Kentucky 2003)
Lead counsel for Lithonia Lighting, a division of Acuity Brands, in a patent infringement suit brought against it in the Northern District of Kentucky (Louisville) by competitor Genlyte. Took over case shortly before trial following adverse summary judgment ruling on infringement. Conducted presentation on the merits before Magistrate Judge, who settled the case on terms favorable to Acuity Brands.
Guidant v. Boston Scientific (Northern District of Illinois 2003)
Lead counsel for Guidant in patent litigation against Boston Scientific in the Northern District of California. Guidant sued Boston for infringing its patent on laser-cut coronary stents. The matter settled as part of a global settlement of all patent litigation between the companies.
Honeywell v. Goodrich Avionics (District of Delaware 2003)
Lead counsel for the Avionics Division of Goodrich Corporation in a patent infringement suit brought against it by Honeywell in the District of Delaware before Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. The technology concerned terrain warning and awareness systems for aircraft. The case settled prior to claim construction.
Crown, Cork & Seal Technologies, Corp. v. Continental PET Technologies (District of Delaware 2002)
Lead counsel for Continental in an infringement suit in the District of Delaware. Crown alleged that Continental’s plastic beer bottles infringed a Crown patent on “oxygen scavenging” technology. The case was stayed pending resolution of a contractual issue between Crown and Chevron, from whom Continental claimed a license. During resolution of that dispute, Bartlit Beck was conflicted out of the representation.
American National Can v. Continental PET Technologies (District of Connecticut 2000)
Lead counsel for Continental in a patent infringement suit in the District of Connecticut (New Haven) in which American National Can claimed Continental’s clear and recyclable squeeze bottle for Heinz ketchup, and several other Continental containers, infringed various ANC patents on simultaneous injection blow-molding technology. Conducted week-long Markman Hearing with witnesses before Special Master, Don W. Martens, concerning the meaning of the asserted patent claims. The matter settled.
Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Sperry-Sun Drilling Services (Southern District of Texas 1998)
Represented a Dresser Industries subsidiary in an infringement suit in the Southern District of Texas. Schlumberger alleged that Dresser infringed its patent on oilfield “measurement while drilling” technology. Dresser countersued for Schlumberger’s infringement of its patent on directional drilling. The parties settled as part of an international settlement.
Wokas v. Dresser (Northern District of Indiana 1997)
Represented the Wayne Division of Dresser Industries in a patent infringement action in which individual inventor, Albert Wokas, claimed that Wayne’s gasoline vapor recovery system infringed his 1979 patent on gasoline vapor emission control systems. Conducted week-long Markman Hearing with witnesses before Judge William C. Lee of the Northern District of Indiana, Ft. Wayne Division, concerning the meaning of the asserted patent claims. Wokas settled on the courthouse steps before the jury trial began.
Hampton v. Guare and Lincoln Center Theater (Supreme Court, New York County 1992)
Represented Lincoln Center in a “right of publicity” suit filed against it by David Hampton, the con man upon whose life the hit John Guare play, “Six Degrees of Separation,” is based. Lincoln Center’s motion to dismiss was granted by the New York State trial court. Hampton did not appeal.
Combustion Engineering / Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Arbitration 1992)
Represented Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (“MHI”) in a potential arbitration in which MHI prepared to defend itself from claims of misappropriation of trade secrets in connection with the expiration of a license agreement between Combustion Engineering and MHI concerning industrial boiler technology. Spent one week in Japan touring MHI’s boiler works and interviewing technology specialists. The matter was resolved without resort to arbitration.
Georg Fischer v. Sintokogio (Southern District of New York 1991)
Represented Sintokogio, a Japanese manufacturer of impact molding machines, in a patent infringement action filed against it by competitor, Georg Fischer. Spent two weeks in Toyokawa, Japan coordinating Sintokogio’s document production. The matter settled shortly thereafter.
Business Torts Litigation
Crescent Resources Litigation Trust v. Duke Energy (Western District of Texas 2013)
Lead counsel for Duke Energy in a $1.2 billion fraudulent conveyance case brought against it by a litigation trust created out of the bankruptcy of Duke’s former wholly-owned real estate development subsidiary, Crescent Resources. Defended deposition of Duke Energy's CEO, after which the case settled on favorable terms when co-counsel at Fulbright successfully obtained a partial summary judgment dismissing the majority of federal fraudulent conveyance claims.
Norcross Safety Products v. Invensys (Arbitration 2001)
Represented Invensys as first chair in a $60 million arbitration in which Norcross alleged that Invensys committed fraud when it sold Norcross its safety products division. The case settled on terms favorable to our client Invensys seconds prior to opening statements before Judge Abner Mikva, Judge John Upchurch and Dick Pogue of Jones Day.
City Colleges of Chicago v. Coopers & Lybrand and Arthur Andersen (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 2000)
Represented Arthur Andersen in an accountant liability suit brought by City Colleges in connection with alleged losses City Colleges suffered when its treasurer allegedly invested City Colleges’ funds in derivative securities that City Colleges contends were illegal, inappropriate and highly risky and which defendants allegedly failed to detect and report.
Starr v. LSI (Northern District of Illinois 1997)
Represented Litigation Sciences in a suit brought by trial consult Hale Starr in which she alleged tortious interference with an employment contract and tortious interference with prospective relations when her protégé, Theresa Zagnoli, left Starr and worked briefly for Litigation Sciences. The case settled in mediation.
Other Representative General Commercial Litigation
Johnson Controls Battery Group, Inc. v. Saft JV Holding Co. (Delaware Chancery Court 2011 and Southern District of New York 2011)
Lead counsel for Johnson Controls, Inc. in its dispute with Saft Groupe S.A. related to the parties’ joint venture Johnson Controls-Saft Advanced Power Solutions LLC, which developed and manufactured lithium-ion batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles. Successfully opposed Saft’s motion for a temporary restraining order brought in S.D.N.Y. and successfully arbitrated the scope of the parties’ rights to make public statements about the formation of their joint venture. The case settled after extensive negotiations, which Jim Palenchar of Bartlit Beck’s corporate group handled on behalf of Johnson Controls.
Baan Company Litigation (Various State and Federal Courts)
Represented Baan Company, which makes enterprise resource planning software, in various breach of contract and fraud actions in which plaintiffs alleged that Baan breached promises or made misrepresentations concerning the performance and functionality of Baan software.
NL Industries v. Commercial Union (District. of New Jersey 1993-1995)
Represented NL Industries in insurance coverage case for reimbursement of environmental cleanup costs at several sites nationwide.
FMC Corporation v. Astra Veicoli Industriali (UNCITRAL Arbitration 1991)
Represented Astra Veicoli Industriali, a FIAT subsidiary that renovated certain M113 armored personnel carriers, in a breach of contract arbitration. Appeared on behalf of Astra in the London-based arbitration. Interviewed fact witnesses in Italian.
Manhattan Cable Television Franchise Renewal (Franchise Negotiation 1990)
Represented Manhattan Cable Television, a Time-Warner subsidiary, in franchise renewal negotiations with the City of New York’s Bureau of Franchises. Drafted and negotiated the technical portions of the New York City 1990 cable franchise agreement.
Acknowledgements, presentations, and publications
September 24, 2019 presentation to the Coalition for Women’s Initiatives in the Law for CLE entitled, “Questioning Leadership: Enhancing Influence Through Asking Powerful Questions and Listening Visually”
January 29, 2019 presentation to IBM Corp. Head Quarters New York for Diversity & Inclusion CLE “Enhancing Ensemble Performance: Using Stagecraft To Facilitate Connection And Inclusion”
2018 ABA Litigation Magazine (Fall 2018) “Stagecraft for Trial Lawyers: Insights from the Theater World”
October 30, 2018 presentation panelist for Chicago Bar Association CLE entitled, “Remaining Civil in Challenging Practice Situations,” including handout “On Dealing With Difficult Counsel”
October 4, 2018 presentation to IBM Corp. Chicago for Diversity & Inclusion CLE “Enhancing Ensemble Performance: Using Stagecraft To Facilitate Connection And Inclusion”
August 29, 2018 presentation to Bayer AG Law Group Leverkusen, Germany “Enhancing Ensemble Performance: Stagecraft For Lawyers”
June 19, 2018 presentation to Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd. Law Group Deerfield for general CLE “Enhancing Persuasiveness Through Presentation Stagecraft”
March 6, 2018 presentation to The Coalition of Women’s Initiatives in Law Chicago for general CLE “Enhancing Persuasiveness Through Presentation Stagecraft II: Impression Management”
July 19, 2017 presentation to Oxford University Business Economics Program Oxford, U.K. “Enhancing Persuasiveness Through Presentation Stagecraft”
February 21, 2017 presentation to The Coalition of Women’s Initiatives in Law Chicago for general CLE “Enhancing Persuasiveness Through Presentation Stagecraft”
February 24, 2016 Keystone Lecture at the University of Chicago School of Law “Enhancing The Persuasiveness Of Courtroom Advocacy Through Presentation Stagecraft”
May 5, 2016 presentation for Navigant Consulting, Inc. Washington D.C. “Enhancing The Persuasiveness Of Presentations & Testimony Through Presentation Stagecraft”
March 26, 2015 Keystone Lecture at the University of Chicago School of Law “Dealing With Difficult Counsel”
2006 Sedona Conference Institute, ediscovery of dynamic files: “the Excel cross”
Keynote presentation with Judge Shira Scheindlin (Zubulake author) at the 2006 “Managing Electronic Records” Conference
ABA Techshow 2006: Methods for Managing Electronic Evidence
ABA Techshow 2005: Methods for Managing Electronic Evidence
ABA Techshow 2004: Managing Electronic Evidence; Using Technology to Evaluate and Settle Cases
ABA Techshow 2003: 1) So That’s How You Spell Spoliation: Responding to Electronic Discovery Requests; and 2) Using Technology to Prepare for and Conduct Depositions
8th National Court Technology Conference 2003: Keynote Speech -- The High-Tech Attorney, Expectations for the Future
ABA Techshow 2002: 1) Tips and Tricks for Realtime Depositions; and 2) E-Briefs and Pleadings: Current Developments in the Creation and Filing of Electronic Pleadings and Briefs
ABA Techshow 2001: 1) E-Advocacy—How to Craft E-briefs; and 2) 60 Tips & Tricks for Busy Litigators
LegalTech New York 2000: Keynote Speech -- Magazine Briefs: Full color trial demonstratives in legal briefs
- National Law Journal
- The American Lawyer
- April/May 2001, Law Office Computing
- The Mobile Lawyer (a supplement to the American Lawyer)
- Corporate Counsel
- ABA Journal
- The Trial Lawyer's Guide
- The National Law Journal
- The American Lawyer
- Phoenix, AZ (2016)
- Bayer Cipro Antitrust (2005)
- 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 LitigationBayer Cipro Antitrust (2005)
- SK Hand Tool v. Dresser
- Technology Innovations v. United Technologies (1996)