Ed was the lead antitrust counsel in Storage Technology Corporation v. Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-CV-12102-RWZ (D. Mass.) (interim appeal at 431 F.3d 1374, 2006 (Fed.Cir. 2005), an intellectual property and antitrust "aftermarket" case of national significance. In that case, the client, CHE — an independent service organization that provided aftermarket service on computer robotic tape libraries manufactured by STK — was sued for, inter alia, patent and copyright infringement, and alleged violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. CHE counterclaimed, alleging that STK had violated Sections 1 of the Sherman Act by tying access to its alleged intellectual property rights in microcode to the use of STK service, and that STK had violated Section 2 by using its alleged IP rights to monopolize and attempt to monopolize the aftermarket for service of STK equipment. CHE's antitrust claims were, in essence, prototypical Kodak aftermarket claims. After several years of discovery and intensive briefing on summary judgment motions, the federal district court largely denied STK's motions for summary judgment on the Kodak claims, and the case preceded to trial (with other counsel) on those claims. To the best of our knowledge, CHE's antitrust claims stand alone with one other case (out of the more than thirty such cases filed) as being the only Kodak type claims to survive a summary judgment or dismissal challenge during the last decade. At the conclusion of the evidence at trial, the case settled under terms that are confidential.
Ed was the lead defense attorney in a putative nationwide class action antitrust suit pending in federal court in California. The case involved claims by all public schools in the United States against a foreign reprographics (copy industry) manufacturer and its U.S. distributor. The claims involved allegations of antitrust violations arising from alleged product disparagement, including an array of claims arising under the Sherman and Clayton Acts and involving extensive market analysis. In the four years the case was pending, no class was ever certified, and after favorable rulings on a series of the client’s Illinois Brick motions, the case was resolved under terms that are confidential.
He was the lead defense attorney in an antitrust action brought in California federal court in 1998. Western Duplicating, Inc. v. RPSI, et al. This case involved antitrust claims arising from alleged product disparagement under both the Clayton and Sherman Acts, California state law claims, and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. After three years of litigation, the case was settled on terms extremely favorable to our firm’s client.
Ed was one of the lead attorneys in a case where Thompson Coburn LLP represented an automobile dealer suing a major automotive distributor. That case involved franchise law and the Illinois Automobile Dealer Protection Act, and resulted in a finding of liability, including trebling of damages and attorneys’ fees. The case was ultimately settled.
Ed represented landowners in their successful appeal of a Clear Water Act/Wetlands lawsuit brought by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our clients were owners of the largest contiguous farm in the State of Missouri. The Eighth Circuit reversed an adverse ruling of the district court and directed that judgment be entered in favor of our clients instead. United States v. Green Acres Enterprises, Inc. Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, the Eighth Circuit also awarded our clients their attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal.