LexAnalytica. PC has racked up litigation win after win. In many cases, the issues decided were novel, and prevailing on these issues required creative lawyering. The firm particularly prides itself on being able to deliver these impressive results in high stakes matters, and is dedicated to such excellence in any matter that we take on. Representative matters include the following:
Precedent Setting Victory in Below-Cost Pricing Case
A victory in the US District Court for Northern California, in a case of first impression, where the court agreed that a competitor that distributes itsproducts for “free” (but charges inflated shipping and handling fees), is subject to the California below-cost pricing laws under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17043. This was a case of first impression where the Court considered for the first time whether the cost of shipping a product should include the cost of shipping the product. The court found that an advertising that claimed to sell products for “free” was, on its faces, a sale below-cost – and that the cost of shipping should not be included in calculating “cost”. Bebe au Lait, LLC v. Mothers Lounge, LLC, Case No. 13-3035 (N.D. Cal. filed July 2, 2013).
Big Antitrust Win on Motion for Judgment
A big antitrust win on behalf of client National Association of Investors Corp, in a Colorado action captioned Bivio v. ICLUBcentral, Inc., Case No. 11CV978 (Boulder Count. Dist.). That case arose out of a dispute around settlement terms from prior federal litigation between NAIC and Bivio. The firm successfully represented NAIC in that federal litigation, where the opposing party agreed to pay NAIC substantial sums.
As part of the short form memorandum of settlement, the parties agreed to a non-disparagement clause, and to conclude a long-form agreement detailing the basic terms of settlement. However, Bivio took the position that the non-disparagement clause needed to be an absolute prohibition of any negative statements between Bivio and ICLUB (a Bivio competitor, and an NAIC subsidiary), even though Bivio and ICLUB controlled substantially all of the relevant market.
Bivio’s rushed to state court to seek a declaration that its position was right, but the State Court agreed with NAIC that any non-disparagement clause had an implied antitrust carve-out for truthful statements. In the absence of such a carve-out, Bivio would have successfully stifled advertising and other truthful statements in the relevant market.
Multi-million Dollar Appeal Win
Secured a multi-million dollar win in the California Court of Appeal, in Moore v. Bebe au Lait, LLC, Case No. H037266 (6th Dist.) The controversy involved an alleged oral promise of shares to a lender. Acting for defendants, the firm obtained summary judgment in the trial court on almost all the claims, and that order was fully affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The appeals courts also upheld a trial court ruling that plaintiff, a successful lawyer, charged a usurious rate of interest, in violation of the California Constitution.
Another Multi-million Dollar Appeal Win
Successfully represented a venture fund named as a defendant inJohnSylla v. Kataname, Inc. et al., No. CIV 449726 (San Mateo County Sup. Crt, filed September 20, 2005). Obtained dismissal of all claims against venture fund by pre-trial motion, while remaining defendants had judgment entered against them for $2.2 million.
Obtained Judgement in Breach of Confidentiality Case
Obtained judgment against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. on a breach of confidentiality claim, in Business Applications Performance Corporation v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-203837 (Santa Clara County Sup. Crt., filed June 27, 2011).
Obtained Judgment against Nike, Inc. for Trademark Infringement
Represented plaintiff in Langendorfer v. Nike, Inc., No. 09-3079 (N.D. Cal. filed July 8, 2009). Obtained judgment against Nike for trademark infringement.