Results

Past successes do not necessarily mean similar results in the future.  Each case has its own unique facts and issues.  But over his career, Alan Anderson has achieved a remarkable number of successful results for his clients.  Especially in the area of intellectual property litigation, in which Alan is recognized nationally, he has often obtained excellent results.  Here are some of the more significant results that Alan has achieved:

· In Fall 2010, Alan was lead counsel on behalf of two Minneapolis-based companies in a multi-plaintiff/multi-defendant products liability/breach of warranty/failure to warn action.  The case was tried for six weeks before a jury in state court in Arkansas.  After one day of deliberations, the jury returned a complete defense verdict, finding no liability on any of the defendants.

· In Fall 2009, Alan tried a patent infringement action on behalf of an electrical connector manufacturer in a case brought against it by a competitor.  While the jury found against Alan’s client, on post-trial motions, the trial judge reversed the jury’s finding of willful infringement, determined that the trial in fact should have been barred under principles of collateral estoppel, and found that Alan’s client had a likelihood of success on appeal, thereby staying issuance of a permanent injunction.  The case remains pending before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

· In August 2009, following a favorable claim construction ruling in a patent infringement action brought against his client for allegedly infringing two patents, Alan obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of his Connecticut-based client in a patent infringement action brought by a competitor in Pennsylvania federal court.

· In 2007, Alan was co-counsel in a patent infringement action between two Fortune 500 corporations.  Each competitor asserted patent infringement claims against the other.  Alan’s area of responsibility was the damages aspects.  The jury rejected the plaintiff’s damages claim and also ruled in favor of the patent infringement claim of Alan’s client.  Although the jury also ruled in favor of the other company’s patent infringement claim, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision on appeal and affirmed the findings in favor of Alan’s client.

· In early 2006, Alan obtained a seven-figure settlement on behalf of an Australia-based company in an arbitration proceeding pending before the London Court of International Arbitration.  The opposing party was a Netherlands-based former European distributor of his client.  The matter settled after significant mediation efforts shortly before the final hearing was to commence.

· In late 2005, Alan obtained an eight-figure settlement in a major domestic arbitration matter on behalf of the U.S. subsidiary of a French corporation against a U.S. Fortune 100 corporation.  The matter had been pending for over three years, and included ancillary proceedings in two federal courts and at one point required Alan to successfully obtain an injunction against the arbitration panel’s efforts to intrude upon the exclusive jurisdiction of a federal court.

· In 2005, Alan tried a patent infringement and theft of trade secrets case for five weeks on behalf of the accused infringer, a Fortune 50 company.  The plaintiff was a small competitor.  The jury found on behalf of Alan’s client on several causes of action and refused to find willful infringement or to award punitive damages.  The damages awarded to the plaintiff were less than 5% of the amount sought.  On post-trial motions, the trial court stayed enforcement of the permanent injunction against infringement, finding that Alan’s client had a likelihood of success on appeal.  The case later settled while the appeal was pending.

· In 2004, Alan obtained a seven-figure settlement on behalf of a Minneapolis-based company in a trademark infringement action.  The defendant also agreed to make changes to its allegedly infringing mark.  The seven-figure settlement is believed to be one of the largest ever obtained in a trademark infringement matter in Minnesota.

· In 2004, Alan obtained a seven-figure settlement on behalf of a Utah-based family-owned company against a multi-billion dollar Canadian corporation in a patent infringement action, following the grant of summary judgment of infringement, validity, and enforceability of the patent in favor of Alan’s client.  Alan had to appeal an adverse claim construction ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reversed the district court’s decision.  The favorable outcome followed remand of the case.

· In 2002, Alan was lead counsel in a patent infringement action between two Fortune 100 medical device manufacturers based in Minnesota.  He obtained a $175 million settlement for his client following 9 days of trial – just before closing arguments.  This was the second largest patent litigation settlement in 2002 in the United States.

· In 2002, Alan was co-counsel in a patent infringement action brought by an individual inventor against a Fortune 500 company.  The case was tried in New York City.  The jury awarded $28.5 million in damages and found willful infringement.  The trial judge later increased the total damages award to approximately $50 million.  The jury’s verdict was the eighth largest patent infringement jury verdict in 2002.

· In 2000, Alan obtained a multi-million dollar jury verdict on behalf of a small Minneapolis-based corporation against a Florida-based competitor in a patent infringement action.  The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment.  Building on the outcome of that case, Alan succeeded in negotiating over the next few years several licenses against other infringers that generated substantial revenues for his client.

· In 1999, Alan tried a “bet the company” action on behalf of a Minnesota-based franchisor in state court in northern Minnesota.  The jury not only rejected all of the plaintiff’s claims against Alan’s client, but awarded six-figure damages to Alan’s client on the company’s counterclaims.  Later, the trial judge awarded Alan’s client its attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the action.

· In 1994, Alan was lead counsel on behalf of a small Minnesota-based medical equipment manufacturer in a patent infringement and business disparagement action against a California-based competitor.  Shortly before trial was to begin, Alan succeeded in negotiating a seven-figure settlement for his client.

· In 1993, Alan represented a Minneapolis-based company with leading-edge remote meter reading technology.  After 3 days of trial, the defendant agreed to a seven-figure settlement.  Alan then represented the same client in multiple other actions against infringing competitors, in each case achieving a substantial settlement for his client.