Appeals

DexCom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. (Fed. Cir.)
Represented Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. in securing a significant appellate victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision invalidating claims 1-3 and 11-13 of DexCom’s patent. Although Kirkland did not represent Abbott in the underlying inter partes review proceeding, it successfully defended the PTAB’s ruling on appeal after DexCom challenged the Board’s determination that the asserted claims were unpatentable. In August 2026, the Federal Circuit—relying heavily on the arguments Abbott made in its response brief—entered judgment affirming the PTAB’s decision in full, preserving Abbott’s victory and eliminating key patent claims asserted by DexCom.

Fredric A. Guenther, et al. v. BP Retirement Accumulation Plan, et al. (5th Cir.)
Represented BP Corporation North America in securing a major appellate victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a judgment requiring BP to provide increased retirement benefits for employees who had been excluded from that increase years earlier. In 2016, Kirkland took over the appeal and obtained a vacatur of the judgment after the district court ruled for the employees and ordered that all employees receive a benefit equal or greater to their prior benefit, resulting in potentially $1 billion of exposure for BP. Drawing heavily from Kirkland’s briefing, the Fifth Circuit held that BP’s alleged wrongs were limited to the 1989 communications and that the employees’ alleged injuries were limited to decreases in benefits. The court then held that the district court failed to make findings as to whether decreases in benefits were caused by the supposedly inadequate communications, despite the traceability requirement of Article III standing. The Fifth Circuit remanded for the district court to evaluate Article III standing in light of its ruling. The decision immediately eliminated a major pension liability for BP, significantly narrowed the employees’ theory of liability, and preserved Kirkland’s remaining contentions, including statute-of-limitations and class-certification arguments.

Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation v. Venequip Machinery Sales Corporation (11th Cir.)
Represented Caterpillar in securing a significant appellate victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Caterpillar Financial Services Corp.’s breach of contract claims against Venequip Machinery Sales Corp. (VMSC). After defaults under the loan arrangements, Caterpillar sued to recover amounts owed, but the district court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that Caterpillar had not identified the specific contractual provisions allegedly breached. After taking over the appeal, Kirkland obtained a complete reversal. Adopting key arguments from Kirkland’s briefing, the Eleventh Circuit held that federal pleading standards do not require a plaintiff to identify specific contract provisions, but only to plausibly allege an enforceable promise and its breach. The court found Caterpillar had met that standard by alleging default events and failure to repay the loans when due, allowing the case to proceed and delivering an important victory in the broader series of disputes Kirkland is handling for Caterpillar against Venequip.

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (U.S. Supreme Court)
Represents the Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae in support of respondents in Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. This is a significant Supreme Court case involving the intersection of Title IX, employment discrimination law, and implied rights of action. The case presents an important and unsettled question of federal law: whether Title IX provides a private right of action for employment discrimination. After the Eleventh Circuit held that Title IX does not provide such a claim, the petitioners sought Supreme Court review, noting that the decision deepened a circuit split. The Court agreed to hear the case.

Gluck, et al. v. Hecla Mining Co., et al. (S.D.N.Y.; 2d Cir.)
Represented Hecla Mining Company and its senior officers in long-running securities fraud class action arising out of Hecla’s acquisition of three Nevada gold mines through the acquisition of Klondex Mines. The plaintiffs alleged that Hecla executives were aware of the negative conditions at the Nevada mines but nevertheless issued eight statements covering up those conditions in an attempt to protect Hecla’s credit rating. The district court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the challenged statements were forward-looking statements protected under federal securities law. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the statements were neither forward-looking nor subject to protection even if forward-looking. Kirkland’s briefing on appeal defended the district court’s reasoning but added a series of alternative bases for affirmance. After oral argument, the Second Circuit affirmed. The Second Circuit adopted Kirkland’s alternative grounds for affirmance. The decision dispatched all the plaintiffs’ claims and resulted in a complete win for Hecla.

PACT XPP Schweiz AG v. Intel Corporation (Fed Cir.)
Represented Intel in achieving a complete victory at the Federal Circuit, ending a seven-year battle in a patent dispute against PACT, a foreign patent licensing company. The litigation involved allegations by PACT that every Intel processor from 2011 onward infringed 12 of its patents based on various computer processor technologies, amounting to several billion in alleged damages. Kirkland used virtually every tool available in the patent system and various courts and administrative bodies to defeat these claims. Kirkland secured a final Federal Circuit victory for Intel by successfully arguing that PACT’s prior Patent Office statements narrowed its patent claims, leading both the Delaware district court and the Federal Circuit to reject PACT’s inconsistent positions and uphold summary judgment in Intel’s favor.

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.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd., et al. (N.D. Ill.)
Represented Motorola Solutions in securing a landmark appellate victory when the Seventh Circuit largely upheld a more than $407 million judgment against Hytera for misappropriating Motorola’s digital radio technology trade secrets. The court affirmed substantial compensatory and punitive damages and issued a precedential ruling that the Defend Trade Secrets Act can apply to misconduct with significant international elements, while also directing reconsideration of Motorola’s request for permanent injunctive relief. The victory became final in February 2025 when the U.S. Supreme Court denied Hytera’s petition for certiorari, leaving the damages award and landmark trade secrets ruling intact.

Leo Investments Hong Kong Limited v. Tomales Bay Capital Anduril III, L.P., et al. (Del. Ch.; Del.)
Represented Tomales Bay Capital, LLC, in a high-profile dispute regarding investments in SpaceX. Kirkland won dismissal of breach of fiduciary duty claim. After three years of litigation, a three-day trial at the Delaware Court of Chancery and extensive briefing, the court issued an 86-page opinion in favor of Kirkland’s clients. On appeal, Kirkland achieved a complete win before the Delaware Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court’s rulings on all core claims and reversed the fee award.

Project Jupiter Litigation (N.M. Dist. Ct.; N.M.)
Kirkland secured a significant victory for Forge/BorderPlex Digital Assets and Santa Teresa Capital LLC in connection with the Project Jupiter data center in New Mexico, after previously defeating multiple challenges to the project's tax abatements. In early September 2026, two environmental groups filed emergency writs with the New Mexico Supreme Court seeking to halt a key air permit hearing and block the project's use of an emergency water well, relief that threatened to delay the project at a cost of tens of millions of dollars; the court initially granted the stays and imposed an expedited briefing schedule before Kirkland could respond. Despite more than 10 amicus briefs supporting the stays, including one from the New Mexico attorney general alleging developer misconduct, Kirkland successfully defended the project and the New Mexico Supreme Court dissolved the stays and dismissed both writs in their entirety.