Complex Commercial Litigation

The attention to detail and trial skills we employ in our IP litigation serve our clients equally well in other commercial litigation disputes. W|N’s litigation attorneys have developed an impressive array of experience in other types of complex commercial litigation, as illustrated by the following examples:

SCO Group v. Novell, Inc., Case No. 2:04-CV-00139 (D. Utah)
SCO sued Novell in 2004, asserting, among other things, that Novell had slandered its title to certain copyrights, and that it had lost over $100 million due to Novell’s alleged slander.  Novell obtained summary judgment dismissing SCO’s claims in August of 2007.  SCO appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for trial.  In 2009, Novell asked W|N to step in and lead the trial team in this complex, high-stakes litigation.  The trial lasted three weeks.  On March 29, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in which it found that the copyrights in question were never transferred to SCO, thus completely defeating SCO’s claim for slander of title. 

Jneid v. Novell, Case No. 02CC00182 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Orange County)
The Jneid litigation arises out of an asset purchase agreement between Novell, Jneid and others.   W|N tried the Jneid case in California state court over a period of approximately six months.  The trial court made a number of erroneous rulings that ultimately resulted in a judgment against Novell of over $30 million.  W|N appealed the judgment for Novell, and the court of appeals vacated the trial court judgment.  W|N is set to re-try the case before a different trial judge. 

Zrii v. WAG, LLC, Case No. 4374-VCP (Del. Chancery Court)
W|N’s client (Zrii) manufactures and sells nutritional products through a multi-level marketing organization.  In its first year of business, Zrii set records for sales and growth.  Members of Zrii’s executive team and top distributors conspired together to force Zrii’s owner to sell the business.  When he refused, the defendants convinced many of Zrii’s employees and distributors to leave Zrii and join one of its competitors.  W|N lawyers brought an action in Chancery Court in Delaware and obtained a preliminary injunction against the defendants.  W|N lawyers also coordinated a separate action in California against the competitor, which resulted in the competitor’s agreement to be bound by the injunction and payment of a significant monetary settlement. 

Finisar v. JDSU, Case No. 1:09-cv-138610 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Santa Clara)
Finisar was alleged to owe royalties under a patent license agreement that it had acquired as part of a purchase of assets. Finisar negotiated with JDSU to eliminate those royalties in exchange for a license to a portion of Finisar’s patent portfolio. After the negotiators had agreed to eliminate the royalties, JDSU backed out and demanded payment. Finisar paid the royalties under protest. W|N brought an action on behalf of Finisar to establish that the negotiations had resulted in an enforceable contract and to obtain a refund of the protested royalties. The case settled on terms favorable to Finisar. 

U.S. Bank v. Finisar, Case No. 5:07-cv-4052 (N.D. Cal.)
U.S. Bank, in behalf of the holders of more than $200 million in convertible notes, alleged that Finisar had defaulted under its trust indenture agreement.  Left unchallenged, that allegation could have led to a demand for accelerated repayment of the entire balance, unless W|N’s client agreed to pay the noteholders millions of dollars to waive the default.  Although the case originated as a state law contract dispute, the case was ultimately litigated in federal court because it also turned on the proper interpretation and application of the Exchange Act of 1934 and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939.  W|N brought a declaratory relief action and obtained summary judgment that Finisar had not defaulted.  Capitalizing on the firm's intimate familiarity with the intricacies of federal and state choice of law principles and California procedural and remedies law WN successfully obtained for Finisar an award of attorney’s fees as a prevailing party under California law, notwithstanding a unilateral contractual fees provision running in favor of U.S. Bank and a New York choice of law clause.  Finisar’s fee award is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, as is an award of attorneys fees U.S. Bank obtained as an administrative cost.

Michelson v. Enrich, Case No. 2:97-cv-00765-DAK (D. Utah)
W|N’S client, a network marketing company that offered skin care, nutritional, and other personal improvement products, was sued for $125M by one of its distributors for wrongful termination.  W|N uncovered an agreement between the plaintiff Michelson and a related corporation to the effect that the corporation owned all revenue from the distributorship.  The plaintiff had used the corporation to shelter income, but claimed that all of the income from the litigation belonged exclusively to him.  W|N first successfully moved to require joinder of the corporation, and when the plaintiff refused to do so, successfully argued that the plaintiff had no standing, obtaining a dismissal of the complaint. The dismissal was upheld by the Tenth Circuit on appeal.