Litigation & Trial

Representative Engagements

Civil Trials

  • Defense of an international aerospace corporation in connection with federal qui tam action. Obtained complete defense verdict against a claim for damages in excess of $1 billion for alleged fraudulent billing and retaliatory discharge.
  • Obtained a jury verdict of over $34 million for LifeNet Health in a patent infringement action involving the preservation of soft-tissue grafts. The jury found that LifeCell's skin graft products, AlloDerm® Ready to Use Regenerative Tissue Matrix and Strattice™, infringed all seven asserted claims of LifeNet's patent—a revolutionary patent involving technology that results in a lesser chance of the graft failing. The jury award was ranked by the National Law Journal as one of the "Top 100 Verdicts of 2014" and the largest jury verdict in the Commonwealth of Virginia for 2014.
  • Representing The Regents of the University of California and UCLA Professor Michael Jung, Ph.D., in a dispute with pharmaceutical company Medivation, Inc. over control of A52, a promising drug for the treatment of prostate cancer that Medivation claimed was worth almost $1 billion. Obtained key summary adjudication wins relating to A52, eliminating Medivation's contract claims against The Regents and establishing that Medivation had no rights to A52. Discovered claim that The Regents were underpaid on drugs The Regents did license to Medivation and prevailed in a bench trial on a cross-claim by The Regents pursuant to which The Regents are now entitled to up to $32 million in additional licensing income from Medivation. Prevailed in a jury trial regarding whether Professor Jung defrauded Medivation out of rights to A52.
  • Represented plaintiff DuPont in case alleging misappropriation of over 100 trade secrets relating to KEVLAR® fiber technology in one of the largest trade secret misappropriation cases in U.S. history and obtained $275 million in restitution and damages from Kolon for the theft of KEVLAR® technology.
  • Represented Kemet Blue Powder Corp. in a trade secret misappropriation suit and other claims related to Kemet's hiring of 13 former employees of Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc. (f/k/a Cabot Corporation). A Nevada federal district court dismissed various tort and unfair competition claims as preempted by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), leaving only a trade secret claim. The court ultimately dismissed the trade secret claim on summary judgment under the statute of limitations based on evidence that Global Advanced Metals had sent letters to the former employees about concerns of breach of confidentiality and a cease-and-desist letter to Kemet years before filing suit.
  • Represented Honeywell in multiple trials, including a two-month jury trial of a toxic tort wrongful death cancer case. Plaintiff’s counsel claimed that the death of a woman at age 50 from malignant pleural mesothelioma was as a result of childhood and teenage years' exposures to chrysotile asbestos in Bendix automotive brakes with which her father and brothers worked as shade tree mechanics. Honeywell prevailed on all five causes of action asserted, including negligence, negligent failure to warn, strict liability design defect under both the consumer expectation and risk-benefit tests, and strict liability failure to warn.
  • Obtained a favorable verdict for the defendant after an eight day jury trial involving allegations of overbilling the Department of State on security contract in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dismissals of other allegations against five other corporate and individual defendants and involving myriad other allegations, including all claims asserted concerning another security contract with the Department of Homeland Security in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, were obtained prior to trial. The verdict and summary judgment rulings were upheld on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
  • Successfully represented a prominent entertainment law firm in a multimillion dollar dispute over representation of entertainment clients, obtaining a defense verdict following a two-month trial.
  • Won a willful infringement decision and attorneys' fees following a trial on a patent relating to air disc brake technology used in the commercial vehicle industry, leading to a seminal Federal Circuit decision on willfulness.
  • Achieved a directed verdict for the defendant following trial, in an alleged breach of contract action relating to reimbursement for provision of health care services.
  • Achieved a verdict for Yahoo! following a lengthy bench trial in a representative class action brought under California's Unfair Competition Law, in which it was alleged that Yahoo! aided and abetted illegal internet gambling. Yahoo! successfully asserted defenses under the Communications Decency Act.
  • Obtained verdict and judgment following bench trial of more than $8.4 billion against government of Iran on behalf of more than 300 foreign-national U.S. government employees and their family members for death and injuries resulting from the bombings of the U.S. embassy and U.S. embassy annex in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983 and 1984. John Doe, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., 08-0540-JDB (D.D.C.).
  • Obtained verdict against the government of Iran following bench trial for family members of U.S. nationals victimized by state-sponsored acts of terrorism relating to the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Dammarell, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., No. 01-2224-JDB (D.D.C.).
  • Obtained a verdict following a bench trial against the Government of Libya and a $1.6 billion damages award in favor of the family members of passengers on an airline flight victimized by an act of state-sponsored terrorism.
  • Successfully prosecuted a twenty-three year class action on behalf of a class of 1,100 women in Hartman v. Duffey, the largest Title VII class action ever brought against the federal government. The Hartman trial team achieved 48 victories in 50 individual remedial trials in just under three years, prevailed in a series of appeals before the DC Circuit and US Supreme Court, and ultimately secured a record $508 million settlement against the government. The settlement is the largest ever under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  • Represented multiple defendants in a climate change class action brought in federal court in the Southern District of Mississippi. Plaintiffs alleged defendants' emissions of greenhouse gases contributed to Hurricane Katrina and led to personal injury and property loss. Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed in the trial court on our motion to dismiss, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal.
  • Represented a major defense contractor in a four-week bench trial in a False Claims Act case. The court awarded the government $191,000 on its $13.5 million claim, an award less than half of the amount the company had originally offered to settle related non-fraud allegations.
  • Served since 1992 as national coordinating counsel for DuPont in asbestos litigation, including both premises and product liability claims. We develop long-term national strategy, issue strategy, class strategy, a centralized discovery effort, trial strategy, management of a large law firm network. We are national coordinating counsel to AT&T in asbestos premises liability litigation, as well as trial counsel in certain jurisdictions.
  • Represent DuPont in national litigation attacking products involved in polybutylene plumbing. The litigation spans 20 years in both state and federal courts and at all appellate levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the lower and appellate courts of Canada. We have achieved significant victories in the appellate and trial courts, including two cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for writs of certiorari seeking review of appellate decisions in federal and state court upholding dismissals of similar nationwide class actions.
  • Represent Everest Reinsurance Company with regard to reinsurance and coverage issues arising out of the New York state court litigation involving the liquidation of Midland Insurance Company pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.  The Crowell & Moring team has been actively litigating individual claim issues at the trial court level and is presently involved in referee proceedings concerning one of these claims.
  • Represented MAN Roland in patent litigation involving high-speed printing press technology (obtained favorable settlement during trial).
  • Won an infringement verdict at trial on a patent relating to differential scanning calorimeter technology.
  • Special counsel for TiVo in a jury trial resulting in a $74 million award for infringement of a patent on a "multi-media time-warping system."
  • Successfully defended a large aerospace manufacturer in federal court in California, in the trial of the plaintiff's claims of race discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Civil False Claims Act.

Criminal Trials

  • After a seven-week federal criminal jury trial, we successfully defended the CFO of an aircraft leasing company, who faced government allegations that the company and many of its high-ranking executives engaged in a fraudulent financing scheme that raised $50 million. The company and its CEO were convicted on bribery and fraud charges, but the jury hung on our client, leading to the declaration of a mistrial, followed by dismissal of all charges.
  • In defending a prominent former charter school executive in a high-profile public corruption matter, we obtained the dismissal of multiple charges in pretrial motion practice and, after a month-long jury trial, the reversal of all public corruption convictions based on post-trial motions. The remaining counts of conviction are currently on appeal, as is the court's granting of the motion for a new trial on the public corruption convictions.
  • Successfully defended the CFO of California-based Lindsey Manufacturing in one of the first Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases to go to trial (a five week jury trial), overturning a highly publicized guilty verdict on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and obtaining a complete dismissal for our client.
  • Represented the former president of a marine construction company accused of criminal bid-rigging. The court granted our Rule 29 motion and dismissed all charges at the close of the government's case after two weeks of trial in federal court in Texas.
  • Represented a transportation company in federal court in Florida accused of filing false reports with and withholding information from a federal agency. A jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts.
  • Represented a food company official accused of making false statements to a federal agency in connection with the largest food recall in US history. All charges were dismissed at the close of the government's case after four weeks of trial in federal court in Nebraska.
  • Represented the vice president for quality assurance of a major pharmaceutical company, accused of conspiracy, obstruction, and other charges. Our client was acquitted in federal court in Maryland after the company itself had pleaded guilty and paid a $10 million fine for the same conduct.
  • Represented a company in a case based on defective pricing. After a three-week bench trial, the court ruled in favor of our client on virtually every issue and awarded a judgment less than half of that originally offered by the company in settlement of related non-fraud claims.
  • Represented  an individual accused of criminal bid-rigging. All charges against our client were dismissed by the judge at the close of the government's case after two weeks of trial in federal court in Texas.
  • Representation of the leading blood bank in the New York metropolitan area, and one of the largest in the country, in two grand jury investigations of alleged falsification of viral testing. Despite the convictions of two lab supervisors, no criminal charges were brought against our client.
  • Represented a foreign construction company in a qui tam suit alleging fraud in connection with building the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on all claims.

Administrative Proceedings

  • Secured record-setting awards from the Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) and U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) on behalf of SUFI, a small telephone company that had a no-cost contract with the Air Force. After winning declarations from the ASBCA after a four-day trial that the Air Force was in material breach and SUFI could quit work, we prosecuted 28 claims for SUFI in a five-week trial in the U.S. and Germany. The ASBCA ruled in SUFI’s favor on 22 of those claims, eventually awarding over $7 million (over $10 million with interest) after we doubled the award through three motions for reconsideration. We then appealed the ASBCA’s decision to the CFC, which awarded SUFI over $100 million additional, plus interest. The government appealed that decision and the Federal Circuit, while agreeing with most of the CFC's holdings as to the errors by the board, determined that remand to the board was the appropriate avenue for correcting the damages calculations. On remand, following the guidance and instructions of the CFC and Federal Circuit, the ASBCA awarded SUFI an additional $113 million, plus interest, while denying the Air Force's motion for reconsideration. The government sought review of the ASBCA’s award before the CFC, but its challenge was rejected on the basis that DOJ has no independent right to complain of an award accepted by the contractor. The government then appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the CFC’s dismissal of DOJ’s challenge and found DOJ’s assertions that the ASBCA failed to comply with the Federal Circuit’s mandate to be meritless.
  • Defended a major U.S. aerospace company against State Department administrative charges arising from the alleged unauthorized transfer of technical data and performance of defense services in connection with a satellite launch in China.
  • Twice successfully defended a contract award, before the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, to Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. valued at over $3 billion for a comprehensive worldwide dental healthcare insurance program for eligible family members of military personnel.
  • Obtained a major victory for farmers and animal feeding operations nationwide in a case consolidating both industry and citizen challenges to EPA's Clean Water Act regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The Second Circuit vacated EPA's regulations on this issue, adopted the arguments from Crowell & Moring's briefs, and held that EPA has no Clean Water Act jurisdiction over animal farms in the absence of an actual addition of a pollutant to navigable waters.
  • Successfully defended a contract award to Spectrum Healthcare Resources valued at over $220 million to construct and operate two family health clinics as part of DoD's Military Health System.
  • Turned back multiple protests challenging the Army's award to our client of a contract worth nearly $80 million to manufacture hand grenades. In denying the protests, GAO agreed with Crowell & Moring, finding that the Army's conduct of discussions and evaluation of proposals were proper, and that the Army correctly did not apply a price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns to non-HUBZone entities.
  • Challenged an HHS Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) award to Highmark Medicare Services on behalf of CIGNA. In the first decision, GAO sustained on multiple grounds and recommended that discussions be re-opened and new proposals received. It is unusual for GAO to issue decisions sustaining multiple different challenges to an award decision. Following a new round of proposals and re-evaluation, HHS awarded the contract to our client, CIGNA. Three protesters challenged the award, and we intervened to assist the agency in defending the award. Several hundred pages of briefs were filed and GAO conducted a three-day hearing, before denying all of the protest grounds.
  • Successfully defended an award valued up to $229 million for information technology services to its client, ASRC Primus, by NASA. GAO denied all of the wide-ranging challenges to NASA's evaluation of the protestor's and ASRC Primus' proposals on price, technical, and past performance grounds, and to the agency's conduct of discussions.
  • Defended an award by the General Services Administration to M.A. Mortenson Company for the construction of a federal courthouse in Billings, Montana. GAO rejected the protester's allegation because the contemporaneous record demonstrated that the protester's proposal failed to meet the minimum RFP requirements and was technically unacceptable.
  • Protested successfully the award by DOD TRICARE of a massive $16 billion health care support services contract. After full protest proceedings, including a lengthy hearing, GAO sustained Crowell & Moring's protest on six separate grounds and recommended that the agency perform a new evaluation and make a new source selection decision. The agency subsequently rescinded the original award, excluded the awardee from the competition, and awarded the contract to Health Net Federal Services.
  • Defended the award of a large contract for the next generation modernization of the hardware and software of the Navy's Aegis Weapons System, the shield of the fleet against air attacks by aircraft or missiles, to long-term incumbent contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. The decision was important because: (1) Lockheed Martin maintained its status as the lead contractor for this important program; and (2) it re-affirmed important principles of bid protest law relating to sole source award procedures, particularly the important role that experience and unwritten overall knowledge of the critical components of a sophisticated system can play in justification of such awards.
  • Represented the Defendant, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, in a suit where the plaintiff sought to enjoin the Airports Authority from leasing restaurant space at Reagan National Airport, on the eve of turnover to the new tenant. Crowell & Moring pushed for accelerated discovery, briefing, and hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, and then persuaded the Court to deny Legal Sea Food's motion, resulting in dismissal of the action just five days before the start of the new restaurant lease.
  • Defeated a protest at the District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board, saving our clients' 8-year, $537 million public-private project with the D.C. Government to develop, construct, and manage a 14-story hotel to support the new D.C. convention center. Crowell & Moring obtained dismissal of the entire protest on jurisdictional issues at the Board and then secured summary affirmance of that ruling on appeal at the District of Columbia Superior Court.
  • Defended a nationwide bus company in massive litigation before the National Labor Relations Board. Because the strike forced the employer to seek bankruptcy protection, we also defended the company in the bankruptcy court.
  • Represented a home textile company in a favorable classification dispute before U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • Defended a major US aerospace company against State Department administrative charges arising from the alleged unauthorized transfer of technical data and performance of defense services in connection with a satellite launch in China.

Arbitrations

Middle East and Africa

  • Represented a South African mining company before an LCIA tribunal seated in London in an arbitration concerning toll refining. The tribunal awarded our client a complete victory totaling US$200 million, including interest and legal costs and disbursements.
  • Represented a Kuwaiti subcontractor to a major U.S. defense contractor operating in Iraq in connection with multiple disputes arising out of a large-scale U.S. government contract. We have submitted multiple breach of contract claims to arbitration under LCIA and AAA/ICDR rules.
  • Represented a U.S. multinational hotel company in a dispute between the manager and operator of a property in Dubai, UAE, and the Emrati owners over the management and operation of the hotel.
  • Represented a Southern African mining company and its local subsidiary in a dispute with a West African country over the Government's manipulation of the country's exchange rate and imposition of taxes in relation to the companies' multi-million dollar investments in that country.
  • Represented a Middle Eastern Bank in relation to a dispute seated in London under the UNCITRAL rules, arising from a management agreement with a major European multinational bank.
  • Represent a U.S. hotel company in connection with a bilateral investment treaty dispute arising out of the company's investment in the Egyptian tourism industry. The dispute concerns the alleged breach by the government of the treaty's guarantees of expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, and treatment no less favorable than that required by international law.

Asia

  • Represented a Canadian uranium mining company in a bilateral investment treaty arbitration arising from expropriation of the company’s mining licenses by the government of Mongolia. Following nearly five years of work resulting in an international tribunal’s Award on the Merits in favor of our client, the government of Mongolia agreed to pay our client US$70 million and settle all outstanding matters pursuant to the arbitration. Khan Resources Inc., et al. v. Government of Mongolia, et al. (PCA UNCITRAL Arb.).
  • Represented a U.S. company seeking over $200 million from the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Coca-Cola Export Corporation, and Zeromax Group for breach of contract, unlawful conspiracy, and expropriation of its interest in a successful joint venture in Uzbekistan. The arbitration, in Vienna, is under the rules of the International Arbitral Centre of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber.
  • Represented a Bangladeshi company in London-based ICC arbitration proceedings, under English law, against a U.S. company in connection with breach of contract and other claims arising out of a joint venture agreement relating to a port construction project in Bangladesh.
  • Represented an Indian company in a Seoul-based ICC arbitration against a Korean company arising out of the latter's investments and business activities in India. The substantive law of the arbitration was the law of India.
  • Represented a Chinese chemical manufacturer in an intellectual property dispute with one of the world's largest petroleum companies at the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC).

Europe

  • Represented a Cypriot company that invested in two Turkish hydroelectric utilities, both of which had billion-dollar, multi-year concessions, to perform generation, transmission, distribution, and trading in the Turkish electricity sector. The Republic of Turkey cancelled the concessions and seized all of the related facilities in June 2003. This ICSID arbitration has been brought under the Energy Charter Treaty.
  • Represented an Italian investor in connection with multi-million dollar claims against a CIS country under a bilateral investment treaty for unfair and inequitable treatment, discrimination and breaches of customary international law.
  • Represented a California company in connection with multi-million dollar claims against a CIS country under a bilateral investment treaty for expropriation, discrimination, and unfair and inequitable treatment.

Latin America

  • Represented the Republic of Bolivia in an ICSID arbitration involving the "Water War" in Cochabamba. After defending the case for nearly four years, and following a hearing on the issue of jurisdiction, we reached a "no-pay" settlement for Bolivia. This result was a significant victory for our government client.
  • Represented a U.S. company in an ICSID dispute arising out of a legal stability agreement relating to the company's multi-million dollar investments in the Peruvian electricity sector. The dispute arose out of the Peruvian Government's application of a series of unlawful taxes on a retroactive basis. The tribunal found that Peru had violated the guarantee of tax stabilization and the principle of good faith, awarding our client over $18 million in damages, plus pre- and post-award interest.
  • Represented a U.S. company in an ICSID dispute relating to the company's multi-million dollar investments in the Ecuadorian electricity sector. The tribunal found in our favor and the total award, including interest, is calculated to be over $10 million.
  • Represented a Brazilian joint venture company in a Paris-based ICC arbitration against a Brazilian state-owned utility arising out of a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) and involving issues related to the construction of a power plant. The dispute involved claims and counterclaims in excess of $1.8 billion, and was one of the first major international arbitrations involving a Brazilian mixed-capital company.

NAFTA/CAFTA

  • Represented a publicly-held Canadian corporation owning rights in mining claims in the California desert. The claims, brought under the NAFTA, are based on the U.S. Government's alleged expropriation of those rights and breaches of customary international law.
  • Represented a Canadian company and Canadian citizens who are members of the Six Nations Confederacy in an UNCITRAL arbitration under the NAFTA. The claims are based on measures taken by 46 state governments and six territorial administrations of the U.S. subsequent to a litigation settlement agreement made with large tobacco manufacturers.
  • Represented a U.S. mining company in connection with a multi-million dollar investment dispute in a Central American country under the CAFTA.