Heller Ehrman Named to National Law Journal's "Appellate Hot List"
04.07.2008
Firm Recognized for Handling Some of the Most Important Appeals of the Year
(SAN FRANCISCO and NEW YORK) April 7, 2008 – Heller Ehrman LLP has been named to the National Law Journal’s first-ever “Appellate Hot List,” which recognizes the nation’s leading appellate practices. The April 7 issue of the weekly legal news publication singled out law firms that “played roles in the most important appeals of the year.” Heller Ehrman was one of 20 law firms to make the inaugural list.
The attorneys in Heller Ehrman’s Appeals & Strategy Group have briefed and argued hundreds of appeals in the U.S. Supreme Court, all federal Courts of Appeals, and numerous state supreme courts and intermediate courts. The firm has been involved in appellate cases concerning intellectual property, antitrust, insurance coverage, administrative, securities and constitutional law. Among the attorneys in the firm’s Appeals & Strategy Group are former Supreme Court and Court of Appeals clerks, former federal prosecutors, the founding president of the Brennan Center for Justice, and fellows of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers and the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Heller Ehrman’s recent appellate achievements include the following:
- Merck KGaA v. Integra LifeSciences I, Ltd., 496 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
In 2005, the firm represented Merck KGaA in securing a critically important 9-0 victory for the pharmaceutical industry. See 545 U.S. 193 (2005). The Supreme Court, reversing the Federal Circuit, had established an expansive safe harbor that allows drug companies to conduct research on promising drugs even while those drugs are still subject to patent protection. The National Law Journal called it “the most significant patent infringement case to confront the biotech and pharmaceutical industries in a generation.” On remand, the opponent advanced a variety of theories that, if accepted, would have gutted much of the protection the Supreme Court had just granted. The Federal Circuit rejected the arguments, 2-1, vacating the $6 million jury verdict that it had previously upheld and awarding Merck judgment as a matter of law.
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 127 S. Ct. 1199 (2007), on remand to the Ninth Circuit
PG&E hired Heller Ehrman to handle the Supreme Court proceedings in this dispute over the right of creditors to recover contractual attorneys’ fees incurred in bankruptcy proceedings. The issue had divided the Courts of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit had concluded that the fees were available. Heller Ehrman argued that the Ninth Circuit reached the right conclusion, but based on the wrong rationale. The firm urged the Supreme Court to consider the alternative argument for why the Bankruptcy Code does not allow creditors to bloat their claims with attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court agreed with both parties that the Ninth Circuit’s analysis was incorrect, but left it to the Ninth Circuit to decide whether fees actually are permitted. The issue is very controversial in bankruptcy circles, with many commentators concerned that powerful interests will divert scarce resources to pay their own lawyers, leaving other creditors with nothing. That is the issue that is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.
- Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth, 502 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2007)
The Ninth Circuit vacated a verdict of $16 million (before trebling) against firm client PeaceHealth, a hospital system in the Pacific Northwest. A competing hospital system claimed that PeaceHealth had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by “bundling” primary and secondary health services with tertiary services, and selling the resulting bundle at a discount. After the jury found against PeaceHealth for attempted monopolization, PeaceHealth hired Heller Ehrman for the appeal. Expressly rejecting the bundling analysis endorsed by the en banc Third Circuit in a landmark case, LePage’s Inc. v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit held that there could be no liability for bundled discounting under Section 2 “unless the discounts result in prices that are below an appropriate measure of the defendant’s costs.”
About Heller Ehrman LLP
Heller Ehrman LLP has 650 attorneys and professionals in 14 offices worldwide – Anchorage, Alaska; Beijing; Hong Kong; London; Los Angeles; Madison, Wis.; New York; San Diego; San Francisco; Seattle; Shanghai; Silicon Valley; Singapore; and Washington, D.C. Heller Ehrman represents a wide range of industry leaders, from entrepreneurial, technology-driven enterprises to established, multinational conglomerates. The firm’s core values are Excellence, People, Teamwork, Innovation, Community and One Firm.
