The firm represents both plaintiffs and defendants in complex commercial litigation involving diverse claims, including:
- Antitrust and unfair competition
- Investors’ rights
- Fiduciary duty
- Partnership disputes
- Trade secret
- Unfair competition
We approach each case with a coherent strategy and consistent focus on preparing for trial, which our experience has shown is the only way to maximize results. Our clients bring us their high stakes litigation, and we have a proven track record of winning while efficiently managing the litigation.
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., Inc. v. Edgewood Partners Ins. Center
In a fast-moving case alleging the theft of trade secrets and breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the mass departure of officers and employees from one insurance brokerage for a new brokerage, the firm represented the key departing officers. In an effort to shut down the new venture, the plaintiff immediately sought a temporary restraining order. The firm played a critical role in the successful defense of that TRO application, and the matter subsequently resolved.
DVS, Inc. v. C2 Microsystems, Inc. & Dr. Edmund Sun
The firm successfully defended Dr. Edmund Sun, PhD against a multi-million dollar claim brought by Digital Video Systems, Inc. (“DVS”), a publicly held company specializing in the development and application of digital video technologies enabling the convergence of data, digital video and high-end graphics. Dr. Sun, a pioneer in the development of the DVD player and three-dimensional graphics, founded DVS in 1992. After he left the company in 2005 to form a new video technology company, DVS sued, claiming he breached fiduciary duties owed to DVS and misappropriated corporate opportunities from the company. After a three week jury trial, the Court rejected all of DVS’s claims and damages, a result affirmed after Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP’s successful appeal.
Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.
In a highly-publicized case, Kerr & Wagstaffe attorneys persuaded a federal magistrate judge to reverse her prior sanctions of the trial lawyers representing Qualcomm Inc. in its patent dispute with Broadcom Corp. The Court had previously sanctioned several of the attorneys in connection with alleged discovery misconduct. Following that ruling, and after extensive discovery and a three-day evidentiary hearing, Judge Barbara Major changed course and declined to impose any sanctions on the firm’s client and the other lawyers who had represented Qualcomm. Judge Major’s order expressly recognized the numerous reasonable steps the firm’s client took to ascertain the truth during the underlying case.