Jason M. Wilcox, P.C.

Appellate Matters

• Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corporation (S. Ct.) — Represented Jevic in case presenting question whether a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case may be terminated by a structured dismissal that includes priority-skipping distributions of property.
• Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle (S. Ct.) — Represented Puerto Rico in case presenting question whether the Federal Government and Puerto Rico are “separate sovereigns” for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution after persuading the Supreme Court to grant plenary review. The Supreme Court’s decision vindicated client’s public policy interests and re-confirmed the special relationship between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth.
• Horne v. Department of Agriculture (S. Ct.) — Represented California raisin farmers in case establishing the Fifth Amendment requires the Government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property, and that the Government cannot make raisin growers relinquish their property without just compensation as a condition of selling their raisins in interstate commerce.
• Teva Pharmaceutical USA v. Sandoz (S. Ct.) — Represented Teva in case establishing de novo standard of review for subsidiary factual findings made in the course of a district court’s patent claim construction ruling, a decision that overturned longstanding Federal Circuit precedent.
• Juul Labs, Inc. v. FDA (D.C. Cir.) – Secured a critical, high-profile win for Juul in the D.C. Circuit by first obtaining an emergency stay of an FDA order denying marketing authorization to sell Juul’s products, and then negotiating a resolution with the FDA where agency agreed it will take no enforcement action pending further review of Juul’s regulatory submissions.
• In re J.D. v. Juul Labs, Inc. (9th Cir.) – Filed successful Rule 23(f) petition for review of an order certifying two economic-harm classes made up of consumers who used Juul’s products. Parties settled shortly after the 9th Circuit agreed to review the certification order.
• Hytera Communications v. Motorola Solutions (Fed. Cir.) – In the course of a year, successfully represented Motorola in four separate appeals as part of a contentious, multi-front intellectual property dispute. Three of the decisions affirmed PTAB decisions upholding patents on Motorola’s innovative two-way radio technology. The fourth appeal affirmed that Motorola does not infringe Hytera’s patents.
• Alere v. Rembrandt Diagnostics (Fed. Cir.) — Successfully argued for vacating and remanding PTAB decision upholding validity of several claims in Rembrandt’s drug-screening patent. The PTAB canceled the challenged claims on remand.
• Cisco Systems v. Arista Networks (Fed. Cir.) — Successfully defended an ITC determination that Arista infringed a Cisco patent and the scope of the ITC’s exclusion order.
• Enzo life Sciences v. Abbott Laboratories (Fed. Cir.) — Successfully defended summary judgment decision invalidating broad claims for a genetic probe as not enabled.
• Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Cisco (Fed. Cir.) — Successfully vacated a damages award based on apportionment- and standardization-related damages arguments.
• SolidFX v. Jeppesen Sanderson (10th Circ.) — Successfully overturned a $45 million judgment against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen. The Tenth Circuit also affirmed summary judgment victory on antitrust claims alleging monopolization and tying in connection with Jeppesen’s development of an iPad application for displaying aviation terminal charts.
• In re Millennium Lab Holdings (3d Cir.) — Successfully argued in bankruptcy court, district court, and the Third Circuit that third-party releases in bankruptcy plan of reorganization did not violate the constitution under Stern v. Marshall and was an appropriate part of the bankruptcy plan.
• In re Caesars Entertainment Operating Co. Inc. (7th Cir.) — Represented debtor Caesars in appeal over scope of bankruptcy court’s authority to enjoin third-party litigation, obtaining favorable precedential decision that bankruptcy court misunderstood scope of its authority; bankruptcy court entered requested injunction on remand.
• In re Syncora Guarantee Inc. (6th Cir.) — Represented creditor in City of Detroit bankruptcy, obtaining writ of mandamus directing district court to promptly decide appeal arising out of bankruptcy proceedings to allow appellate review of that decision before confirmation of a plan of adjustment.
• In re ION Media Networks (2d Cir.) — Represented debtor ION Media Networks in appeal by a creditor challenging validity of third-party releases in ION’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization.
• United States v. Woodruff (D.C. Cir.) — Successfully represented multiple clients an appeal addressing a circuit split over the scope of conspiratorial liability in federal drug prosecutions. The D.C. Circuit vacated the sentences for two of the defendants in a precedent-setting decision that rejected the reasoning of several other federal appeals courts. The court separately reversed the money-laundering conviction of a third defendant based on arguments developed in collaboration with that defendant’s court-appointed counsel.
  

District Court & Bankruptcy Litigation

• Juul Labs Litigation (Various courts) – Lead legal strategy for Juul Labs, Inc. across a number of cases, including a federal MDL involving more than 6,000 plaintiffs, more than a dozen suits filed by state attorneys general, and FOIA litigation against the FDA. Representative victories include precedent-setting decisions dismissing public nuisance claims brought by the Alaska and Colorado Attorneys General, dismissal of several claims brought by the New York Attorney General, and a summary judgment victory in the first personal-injury bellwether in the federal MDL that significantly limited the company’s exposure.
• In the Matter of Certain Non-Invasive Body-Contouring Devices, Components Thereof, and Methods Using Same (ITC) — Represented a pharmaceutical company and its affiliates in a Section 337 investigation involving patents related to abdomen sculpting. The investigation settled in the middle of the hearing (trial).
• Abbott Cardiovascular Systems v. Edwards Lifesciences (D. Del.) — Represented Abbott in a global litigation involving medical devices for the treatment of life-threatening heart problems. Before the case settled, won key claim construction arguments in federal court and other important pre-trial rulings.
• Rembrandt Diagnostics v. Alere (S.D. Cal.) — Successfully represented Abbott subsidiary Alere in a breach of contract and patent infringement action relating to drug-screening products. Rembrandt accused Alere of selling multiple products that infringed its patents and sought years of royalty damages. After taking this case over from another law firm, successfully narrowed the case to a single patent and a single product. Jury returned a verdict of noninfringement, resulting in a complete victory for Alere.
• In re Millennium Lab Holdings (D. Del) — Successfully represented founder of one of the nation’s largest drug-testing laboratories in bankruptcy litigation challenging the constitutional authority of bankruptcy court’s to enter third-party releases; bankruptcy court entered order approving third-party releases in Chapter 11 plan, holding that it had the constitutional authority to release third-party claims against Millennium’s founder.
• Enzo Life Sciences v. Abbott Laboratories (D. Del.) — Successfully represented Abbott Laboratories in patent infringement action alleging hundreds of products infringed multiple patents. Won summary judgment that all the asserted claims were invalid, resulting in a complete victory for Abbott.
• W.L. Gore & Associates v. C.R. Bard (D. Del.) — Successfully represented C.R. Bard in action brought by Bard’s longtime business competitor and litigation adversary seeking more than $200 million, alleging infringement of three patents on thin-wall stent grafts. Obtained a complete defense verdict for Bard, with the jury delivering a verdict that Gore’s patent claims were not infringed by Bard’s stent graft products and were also invalid on three separate grounds (anticipation, obviousness, and incorrect inventorship).
• FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide (D.N.J.) — Represented Wyndham in action brought under Section 5 of the FTC Act, where the FTC alleges that Wyndham's data-security practices are "unfair" and "deceptive" trade practices; case settled before trial.
• SynQor v. Artesyn Technologies (E.D. Tex.) — Successfully represented Murata in patent damages bench trial related to power conversion technology, resulting in an award of less than a tenth of what the plaintiff sought.
• Summit 6 LLC v. RIM et al. (N.D. Tex.) — Represented Facebook in patent infringement action involving photo compression and uploading technology; case settled before trial.