Appeals

Lenovo (U.S.) Inc.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc., et al. (E.D.N.C., Fed. Cir.)
Defended Lenovo in litigation adverse to Ericsson, involving standard essential patents related to 5G technology. Lenovo sought an anti-suit injunction to stop Ericsson from obtaining injunctions in foreign jurisdictions while litigation over its obligation to license on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (“FRAND”) was ongoing. After the district court denied an injunction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for the district court to reconsider antisuit injunction against Ericsson to prevent Ericsson from seeking or enforcing extortionate injunctions against the sales of Lenovo’s mobile phones. In so doing, the Federal Circuit made clear that Ericsson’s FRAND obligation required that it comply with the obligation to negotiate in good faith before pursuing injunctive relief.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Arbor Global Strategies LLC (USPTO); Arbor Global Strategies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Fed. Cir.)
Represented Samsung in petitions for inter partes review (IPR) challenging the validity of patents that relate to reconfigurable processor modules with hybrid stacked integrated circuits. In 2021, the PTAB found all challenged claims of the three patents-in-suit unpatentable. On appeal, Arbor challenged the legitimacy of the PTAB process as unconstitutional and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as the PTAB’s specific findings, arguing that a different panel of administrative judges was required to decide the merits from those who instituted the IPR. In July 2024, after oral arguments, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's invalidation of Arbor's patent claims. Arbor sought to challenge the PTAB’s approach to appoint judges to cases in the US Supreme Court, which denied review in January 2025.

American Jereh International Corporation
American Jereh International Corporation v. Clarke (Tex. App.)
Represented American Jereh, a supplier of oilfield equipment, in appeal challenging jury verdict finding client liable in multimillion-dollar breach-of-contract suit. Kirkland took over the appeal given the high monetary stakes and far-reaching consequences of the verdict, which would have applied to other Jereh contracts. In a rare reversal of a jury verdict, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed and entered judgment for Jereh, holding that the circumstances were too indefinite to form a contract, other written materials could not supply the missing information without running afoul of the statute of frauds, and attorney’s fees were not justified.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
In re Deepwater Horizon Belo Cases (N.D . Fla.; 11th Cir.)
Represented BP in appeal arising from bellwether proceedings involving “Back-End Litigation Option” under medical settlement following Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The district court excluded plaintiffs’ experts on general causation grounds and granted summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that toxic-tort actions require expert evidence of the level of toxin that can cause the alleged condition in the general population, and concluding that plaintiffs’ experts failed to make this showing. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision led to judgment for BP in scores of cases pending in the district court.

GLAS Trust Company LLC
GLAS Trust Company LLC, et al. v. Ravindran, et al. (Del. Ch.; Del.)
Represented GLAS Trust Company, as administrative agent for over $1 billion in loans, in appeal defending Chancery Court’s determination under 8 Del. Code §225 that GLAS properly exercised remedies under a defaulted credit agreement and installed new directors of company. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a forum selection clause in the agreement did not apply, GLAS was entitled to exercise remedies because of breaches, and an impossibility defense was unavailable to the breaching parties. The decision permitted GLAS and the newly installed directors to pursue hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulently transferred funds.

Joel Francois Jean
USA v. Jean (E.D. Tex.; 5th Cir.)
Represented a Texas man, pro bono, serving a 24-year prison sentence for drug convictions. The laws changed during his incarceration and under 2023 guidelines his sentence would’ve been 10 years shorter. Having already served 15 years and been a model prisoner committed to self-improvement and rehabilitation, our client’s legal arguments were greatly enhanced by compelling letters of support from prison officials. The Kirkland team moved for his compassionate release, arguing that the change in law for career offenders, combined with his rehabilitation and other factors, supported reducing his sentence. The U.S. government opposed the motion. Following a hearing, the court agreed that the non-retroactive changes in the sentencing law and his “wholly extraordinary” record of rehabilitation together warranted his compassionate release. Affirmed on appeal.

Motorola Solutions, Inc.
Hytera Communications Co. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)
Successfully represented Motorola in four separate appeals as part of a contentious, multi-front intellectual property dispute. Three of the decisions affirmed PTAB decisions upholding patents on Motorola’s innovative two-way radio technology. The fourth appeal affirmed that Motorola does not infringe Hytera’s patents.

Motorola Solutions, Inc.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd., et al. (N.D. Ill.)
Represented Motorola in a lawsuit alleging misappropriation of trade secrets against Hytera. Kirkland secured a victory in the district court and the Seventh Circuit affirmed both compensatory and exemplary damages amounting for trade secret misappropriation of over $400 million, describing Hytera’s conduct as “willful and malicious.” The precedential decision is a groundbreaking ruling on extraterritorial application of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. On Motorola’s cross-appeal, citing Hytera’s ongoing “gamesmanship and deception,” the court remanded for the district court to consider the entry of a permanent worldwide injunction that would replace an ongoing royalty with an injunction against any use of Motorola’s trade secrets.

TexGen Power LLC
Luminant Energy Company LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas (TX S.C. appeal)
Represented TexGen Power LLC, an electricity generator, in appeal challenging Texas Court of Appeals decision invalidating emergency orders issued during Winter Storm Uri. The Public Utility Commission of Texas had issued the orders to stabilize the power grid after it approached collapse due to soaring power demand. Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the orders were substantively and procedurally valid, and resolving a years-long dispute that threatened generators like TexGen with billions of dollars in liability.

Abbott Laboratories
In re Recalled Abbott Infant Formula Products Liability Litigation, MDL 3037 (N.D. Ill.; 7th Cir.)
Defending Abbott Laboratories in multidistrict litigation arising out of a recall of infant formula. Kirkland won full dismissal of plaintiffs' economic loss claims stemming from the purchase of recalled infant formula prior to the recall and following the recall. The Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the economic loss claims (in which no personal injury was alleged) for lack of standing. As of 2024, Kirkland has secured full dismissal of all 14 consumer class actions that have been filed related to the February 2022 recall.

Constellation Brands Inc.
Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico C. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y.; 2d Cir.)
Represented Constellation Brands in appeal defending jury verdict finding that Constellation did not infringe “Corona” trademarks when it marketed “Corona Hard Seltzer,” because, under the terms of the licensing agreement, hard seltzer comprised “beer,” which Constellation was permitted to market. The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that license was sufficiently ambiguous for jury to decide the question, the jury instructions on contractual interpretation were correct, and there were no evidentiary errors.

iRobot Corp.
iRobot Corp. v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, et al. (D. Mass.; USPTO; Fed. Cir.); In the Matter of Certain Robotic Floor Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof (USITC)
Representing iRobot in ITC, PTAB, and district court actions against competitor SharkNinja concerning patents related to robotic vacuum cleaner technologies. In 2023, the ITC found a violation as to one patent, and issued a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against SharkNinja. In 2024, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that several claims of one of iRobot’s patents remain valid over SharkNinja’s challenges. Ongoing district court action seeking damages for SharkNinja’s infringement of patents.

Ricky Joseph Johnson
Johnson v. Lewis, et al. (M.D. Ga.;11th Cir.)
Representing a Georgia Department of Corrections inmate, pro bono, in a § 1983 deliberate indifference case. Kirkland’s client was diagnosed with Hepatitis C in 2009 while incarcerated. He did not receive treatment until 2018, by which time his condition had progressed from stage 1 to stage 4 with cirrhosis. In 2019, the district court granted summary judgment to all defendants. On appeal, Kirkland argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because a jury could conclude that two prison physicians and the Georgia Department of Corrections’ Statewide Medical Director were deliberately indifferent to the inmate's worsening liver condition, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. In 2023, after oral argument, a unanimous panel agreed - holding that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to the prison officials. On remand to the district court, and with no opportunity to conduct additional discovery or designate an expert, Kirkland tried the case to verdict. The jury found that both defendants were deliberately indifferent to his worsening liver condition, violating his Eighth Amendment rights.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., et al. v. Dexcom, Inc. (D. Del.); Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., et al. (W.D. Tex.; D. Del.); Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. & Anor v. Dexcom, Inc. & Ors (EWHC)
Obtained precedent-setting victory for Abbott as part of global dispute against its primary competitor. The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction and held as a matter of law that forum selection clause in prior settlement did not preclude Abbott from filing IPRs challenging DexCom’s patents. The PTAB subsequently held unpatentable multiple claims in several DexCom patents.

Meta Platforms, Inc.
Rogalinski v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal.; 9th Cir.)
Represented Meta Platforms in putative class action alleging violation of First Amendment rights through the use of censorship on Facebook's platform. Kirkland won dismissal with prejudice. The Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s decision in full.

BP Exploration and Production, Inc.
Street v. BP, et al. (5th Cir.)
Represented BP in 40 consolidated appeals arising out of Deepwater Horizon oil spill in which plaintiffs alleged that summary judgment was inappropriate because district court judge should have recused himself. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that even if judge should have recused himself under 28 U.S.C. §455 because he previously worked at a law firm involved in Deepwater Horizon proceedings, any error was harmless. The decision upheld judgment for BP in 40 cases and created precedent for securing judgment in numerous other cases.

Intel Corporation
Intel Corporation v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG (USPTO; Fed. Cir.)
Representing Intel in litigation against PACT, a foreign patent licensing company, which alleged that every Intel processor from 2013 forward infringed 12 of its patents based on various computer processor technologies. Intel challenged the validity of several asserted patents at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). After several successful IPR challenges at the PTAB, Intel appealed three decisions as to patents that PTAB had upheld. The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB as to all three, ruling in Intel’s favor. Such a hat-trick of reversals is rare. In so doing, the Federal Circuit clarified the law of obviousness, rejecting the argument that motivation to combine requires expectation of better results than in the prior art, as opposed to just an expectation of suitable results, making clear that a proposed prior art combination need not be better than the status quo to render a claim obvious.

Abbott Laboratories
Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., et al. (S.D. Cal.); Alere, Inc. v. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP (USPTO; Fed. Cir.)
Represented Alere and Innovacon against Rembrandt Diagnostics in breach of contract and patent litigation relating to drug screening devices. After taking the case over from another firm, Kirkland won a key Markman decision interpreting the asserted patent claims favorably for the defendants. The jury then returned a verdict of noninfringement on all remaining claims. Kirkland also obtained a rare and complete patent invalidity victory at the PTAB, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc.
In re Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc., et al. (Bankr. S.D. Tex.; S.D. Tex.; 5th Cir.)
Represented Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc., a petroleum barge company in Chapter 11 proceedings, in appeal defending district court’s affirmance of order approving break-up fee and expenses for stalking-horse bidder in asset auction. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the breakup fee and expenses were justified under the business judgment rule and administrative-expense standard.

Navient Solutions, LLC
In re Navient Solutions, LLC (Bankr. S. D. N. Y.; S.D.N.Y.; 2d Cir.)
Represented student-loan servicer against petition for involuntary bankruptcy brought by loan holders. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the petition and the imposition of attorney’s fees against petitioners’ counsel. The court held that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to dismiss the petition notwithstanding an alternative abstention determination, that dismissal was proper because petitioners’ claims were the subject of bona fide disputes, and that Navient’s motion for attorneys fees was timely and appropriate.

Carrier Corporation
Shoner v. Carrier Corporation (C.D. Cal.; 9th Cir.)
Representing Carrier Corporation, a former subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (UTC), in two putative nationwide class actions alleging a manufacturing defect in HVAC systems manufactured by Carrier in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and violation of the unfair trade practices of California, Michigan and Massachusetts. Kirkland initially won partial dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and twice defeated the plaintiffs’ motions for class certification – affirmed on appeal. In 2022, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a class action asserting federal and state law breach-of-warranty claims.

Juul Labs, Inc.
Juul Labs, Inc. v. FDA (D.C. Circuit)
Representing Juul Labs, Inc. in its petition for review of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) order banning sales of Juul’s e-cigarette products. In 2022, Kirkland secured the stay of the FDA's marketing denial order. Following discussions, the FDA voluntarily stayed its decision, while the agency re-examines its original decision. The FDA publicly committed not to take enforcement action against Juul or its retailers during the administrative review. That commitment ensures Juul’s products will remain available in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

Windstream Holdings, Inc.
In re Windstream Holdings, Inc. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.; U.S.; 2d Cir.)
Represented Windstream Holdings, a multi-billion-dollar telecommunications company, in a bankruptcy appeal before the Second Circuit defending well over $100 million in payments that Windstream made to its critical vendors and lien claimants under a critical vendor order entered early in Windstream’s bankruptcy proceedings. The issues presented were not only exceptionally significant to Windstream, but to bankruptcy debtors generally, as the proper standard of review for critical vendor orders had never before been addressed by the Second Circuit and an adverse result could have made complex bankruptcies practically impossible. Less than three weeks after the argument, the panel unanimously adopted Kirkland’s equitable mootness argument — an issue that was not briefed in the lower courts, and that Kirkland developed for the first time on appeal — and summarily dismissed the appeal, in a complete victory for the Firm’s client.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
McGill v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al. (S.D. Miss.; 5th Cir.)
Represented BP Exploration and Production, Inc., an affiliate of BP America, in the first federal appellate decision addressing the “Back-End Litigation Option” (BELO) created by the massive personal-injury settlement following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident. Kirkland secured summary judgment in favor of BP. Affirmed on appeal. Rehearing en banc defeated.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Tung v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. (S.D.N.Y.; 2d Cir.)
Defended Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) and its officers in a purported securities class action arising out of a drop in the company's stock price following negative drug trials. Kirkland won back-to-back dismissals. Affirmed on appeal.

Sharp Electronics Corporation
Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Electronics Corporation (D. Del.; Fed. Cir.)
Represented Sharp Electronics in litigation seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages for the alleged infringement of patents on video display and streaming technologies. Kirkland took over the case from another firm and scored significant victories that disposed of two of the three asserted patents, with one of them being dropped after the team obtained a substantial victory in claim construction. In 2019, the court entered summary judgment in favor of Sharp, finding the noninfringement of the remaining patents. In 2021, the ruling was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

State of Georgia
State of Florida v. State of Georgia (U.S.)
Represented the State of Georgia in an original jurisdiction action alleging that Georgia’s use of water from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin hurts Florida’s wildlife and economy further downstream. In 2017, following a five-week trial before an appointed Special Master, Kirkland prevailed when the Special Master recommended a denial of Florida’s request for relief. In 2018, following oral argument on exceptions to the Special Master Report, a divided Supreme Court opinion remanded the case back to a new Special Master for further proceedings. In 2019, following additional briefing and argument, the new Special Master sided with Georgia on all issues and recommended that the Supreme Court reject Florida’s claim. In 2021, Kirkland prevailed again when the Supreme Court, following argument, overruled Florida's second round of exceptions and dismissed the case.