News Feed News Description Partner Terri Mascherin Honored as a “Woman of Achievement” <p> Jenner &amp; Block Partner <a href="">Terri L. Mascherin</a>, a nationally recognized trial lawyer and co-chair of the firm’s Professional Responsibility Practice, has been named a “Woman of Achievement” by the Greater Chicago/Upper Midwest Regional Chapter of the Anti-Defamation League.&nbsp; Ms. Mascherin was honored at an awards dinner on Thursday, April 7, 2016 for her pro bono work on death penalty issues and on behalf of those who have been wrongfully convicted or accused.</p> <p> This is the ADL’s 23rd year of recognizing women who are “outstanding in their field of specialty” and who “embody the spirit and philosophy of ADL through their efforts to improve communication and understanding among the diverse racial, religious and ethnic communities of Chicago.”&nbsp; Ms. Mascherin is the third lawyer with ties to Jenner &amp; Block who has received this honor: Partner <a href="">Barbara S. Steiner</a> received the award in 2013, and former firm managing partner Susan Levy received it in 2010.&nbsp; Past award recipients outside the firm include Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to President Obama; Christina Tchen, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; Lynn Martin, former U.S. Secretary of Labor; Andrea Zopp, former CEO and president of the Chicago Urban League; and many other leaders and executives of Fortune 100 companies and leading professional service firms.&nbsp;</p> <p> A Fellow of the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers, Ms. Mascherin is a litigator who is highly accomplished in both jury and bench trials.&nbsp; She is a former president of the Chicago Bar Association who is nationally recognized for her legal work including being <em>Chambers</em> ranked and being honored with a variety of awards by groups ranging from the Korean American Bar Association of Chicago to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.&nbsp; She has an active pro bono practice that includes representation of death row inmates.&nbsp; In 2012, <em>Law360</em> named Ms. Mascherin a &quot;Top Female Trial Attorney,&quot; one of only 15 women nationally selected for the honor.&nbsp; In 2007, she was recognized as one of the “50 Most Influential Women Lawyers in America” by <em>The National Law Journal</em>.&nbsp; Ms. Mascherin serves the firm as a member of the Diversity &amp; Inclusion Committee.</p> 7 Apr 2016 Partner Lawrence Schaner Featured in Law360 Article <p> Jenner &amp; Block Partner <a href="">Lawrence S. Schaner</a> is the subject of a <a href="">Q&amp;A with <em>Law360</em></a>.&nbsp; In the article, Mr. Schaner answers five questions: 1. what attracted him to international arbitration work (the opportunity to do interesting work; the cross-cultural and comparative law aspects of the practice; and the chance to build something new at the firm); 2. two trends that affect the practice of international arbitration (the flood of new players entering the arbitration field and the fact that international arbitration is becoming more of a business); 3. the most challenging case he has worked on (a six-year running battle in an ICC case that ended relatively recently); 4. advice he would give to a lawyer considering a career in international arbitration (be realistic); and 5. a lawyer, outside the firm, who has impressed him.</p> 7 Apr 2016 Firm Represents Nonprofit Beyond OCD to Help Further Its Mission <p> Jenner &amp; Block recently represented Beyond OCD (BOCD), a Chicago not-for-profit and the leading provider of consumer-friendly resources to help sufferers cope with and conquer Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), in the contribution of its assets to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA), a nonprofit that promotes the prevention, treatment and cure of anxiety and mood disorders, OCD and PTSD through education, practice and research.&nbsp; Referred to the firm in early March 2016, BOCD sought counsel on the structure and documentation of the transaction, which had to be completed by March 31.&nbsp; Jenner &amp; Block’s team was led by corporate Associate <a href="">Kevin M. Waklatsi</a>, who immediately became involved in negotiations with the ADAA to ensure that the mission of BOCD would continue and that the assets contributed to ADAA would be used to continue OCD-related programming.&nbsp; Under Mr. Waklatsi’s guidance, both sides were able to close the transaction quickly and on time, accommodating both BOCD’s and ADAA’s target closing date. &nbsp;Partner <a href="">Gail H. Morse</a> provided supervision and Of Counsel <a href="">Emma J. Sullivan</a>&nbsp;provided assistance on labor issues.</p> 11 Apr 2016 Firm Wins Significant Appeal for Olin in Ninth Circuit <p> Jenner &amp; Block recently won an important appellate decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, for Olin Corporation.</p> <p> Olin operates a chlor alkali chemical plant in Henderson, Nevada that, in December 2008, experienced an accident and a subsequent series of events that led to its complete shutdown for a few months.&nbsp; The events leading to the shutdown and the shutdown itself caused a substantial economic loss to Olin and Olin turned to its insurers for coverage.&nbsp; Continental Casualty Company was the plant’s boiler and machinery insurer.</p> <p> Continental denied coverage and sued Olin in Missouri for declaratory judgment and failure to cooperate in the investigation into the cause of the plant outage; Olin countersued in Nevada for breach of contract and bad faith.&nbsp; Olin won transfer to Nevada.&nbsp; The parties settled the bad faith and failure to cooperate claims and went to trial on the contract claim.&nbsp; After a two-week trial in 2013, a Jenner &amp; Block team won a jury verdict for Olin after less than an hour of deliberations.</p> <p> Continental then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, to a new trial.&nbsp; The insurer also contended that the district court abused its discretion in excluding certain evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 407.</p> <p> On March 17, 2016, a three-judge panel rejected all of Continental’s arguments and affirmed the district court’s judgment, preserving the trial victory.</p> <p> Litigation Department Chair <a href="">Craig C. Martin</a> led both the trial team and the appellate team on the case.&nbsp; Partners <a href="">Sara Tonnies Horton</a> and <a href="">Matthew J. Thomas</a> were also members of both teams.&nbsp; Partner <a href="">Michael A. Scodro</a> was a key member of the appellate team.&nbsp; Associates <a href="">Jennifer T. Beach</a> and <a href="">Brienne M. Letourneau</a> and Staff Attorney <a href="">Marek H. Badyna</a> assisted the trial team from Chicago, and Ms. Beach also assisted on appeal. &nbsp;</p> 12 Apr 2016 Jenner & Block Joins Inaugural Women in Law Hackathon, an Effort to Promote Gender Parity in Legal Profession <p> CHICAGO, April 15, 2016 – Jenner &amp; Block is pleased to be one of 54 leading US law firms participating in the Women in Law Hackathon, a “Shark Tank”-style pitch competition aimed at generating innovative ideas to close the gender gap in law firms.&nbsp; Since January, the participants have been working together, virtually, in teams that are devising initiatives to help retain and advance experienced women lawyers in law firms.&nbsp; Each team comprises six partners from across the United States, two talent/diversity thought leaders and a Stanford Law School student.&nbsp; The firm’s representative on the team is Partner <a href="">Reid J. Schar</a>, co-chair of the firm’s White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice.</p> <p> “We are proud to participate in the Women in Law Hackathon,” Mr. Schar said.&nbsp; “We have a proven tradition of promoting and advancing women at Jenner &amp; Block, and we are eager to collaborate and be part of thought leadership initiatives that further advance those goals within the firm and the legal profession at large.”</p> <p> Jenner &amp; Block has long championed efforts to close the gender gap within its own ranks.&nbsp; While women currently represent 18 percent of the partnership in large law firms across the United States, women represent 22.2 percent of the partnership at Jenner &amp; Block.&nbsp; A report by the Diversity &amp; Flexibility Alliance ranked the firm in the top 10 of 118 of the United States’ law firms surveyed regarding their promotion of women lawyers to partner in 2015.&nbsp; That year, the firm’s class of 13 new partners was 61.5 percent women; the 2016 class of 18 new partners was 44.4 percent women.&nbsp; Overall, in the past three years, 50 percent of the new partners have been women.</p> <p> The firm also strives to place women in leadership positions.&nbsp; Jenner &amp; Block was one of the first <em>AmLaw</em> 100 firms to have a female managing partner.&nbsp; Susan C. Levy served in that role from 2008 to 2014.&nbsp; Today, three women partners serve on the firm’s governing board, the Policy Committee.&nbsp; Among the women partners on the Policy Committee is <a href="">Susan J. Kohlmann</a>, who also serves as managing partner of the firm’s New York office and chairs the firm’s Diversity &amp; Inclusion Committee.</p> <p> Jenner &amp; Block also participates in the OnRamp Fellowship, the first re-entry program launched in the legal field for women returning to the workforce after an extended hiatus.&nbsp; That fellowship was founded by Caren Ulrich Stacy, chief executive officer of Diversity Lab and the creator of the Women in Law Hackathon.</p> <p> “Jenner &amp; Block is strongly devoted to promoting and advancing women, as part of its broader commitment to diversity within the firm,” Ms. Kohlmann said.&nbsp; “We have made great strides, but we hope to make many more through our participation in initiatives such as the Women in Law Hackathon.”</p> <p> On June 24, 2016, the Hackathon teams will pitch their ideas to a group of high-profile judges at Stanford Law School.&nbsp; The top three teams selected by the judges will grant their prize money, donated by Bloomberg Law, to nonprofit organizations that are helping to advance women in the legal profession and beyond.</p> <p> In conjunction with the Hackathon, Stanford Law School developed a policy course to research why the gender gap persists in the legal profession and propose possible solutions. &nbsp;Students enrolled in the course, supported by three faculty advisers, will author a white paper on the issue, which will be available to Hackathon participants prior to the June event.</p> <p> “There has never been such a large collaborative effort where rival law firms join together to solve the gender parity issue,” Ulrich Stacy said.&nbsp; “Nor has a major law school previously created a class to examine and help solve the problem.&nbsp; There is an unprecedented concentration of brain power being applied to this issue through the Hackathon.”</p> <p> Click <a href="">here</a> to learn more about the Hackathon.</p> <p> &nbsp;</p> 15 Apr 2016 Partner David Kroeger Comments on Recent Wisconsin Supreme Court Insurance Ruling <p> Jenner &amp; Block Partner and co-chair of the firm’s Reinsurance Practice, <a href="">David M. Kroeger</a>, is quoted in an article published in <em>Law360</em> that examines implications of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent ruling in an insurance dispute.&nbsp; Titled “<a href="">Wis. Justices Deal Policyholders Blow in Defective Part Suits</a>,” the article explains that the court concluded that two insurers do not have to defend or indemnify their policyholders, a pair of probiotic suppliers, in litigation initiated by pharmacy wholesaler Wisconsin Pharmacal Co.&nbsp; At issue were claims stemming from the destruction of a shipment of health supplements caused by an improper ingredient.&nbsp;&nbsp;In a 3-2 decision, the court determined that the incorporation of the defective ingredient into the tablets did not equate to property damage as defined in the policies because nothing was damaged besides the tablets themselves.</p> <p> Mr. Kroeger observes that the court’s majority did not explicitly say, in its 37-page decision, that there is no coverage in any instance where a defective component is mixed into an integrated product.&nbsp; &quot;Under the logic of the majority decision, it appears there are still instances where coverage would exist,&quot; he says. &nbsp;&quot;If there is something that is clearly a component product that is segregable from the whole, then that may be a way to distinguish this case.&quot;</p> 18 Apr 2016 Jenner & Block Wins Far-Reaching Sentencing Case as US Supreme Court Rules 7-1 in <i>Welch vs. US</i> <p> Jenner &amp; Block won a significant victory in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of pro bono client Gregory Welch,&nbsp;a result that has&nbsp;the potential to provide relief to hundreds of persons who were sentenced under a statute that has since been held unconstitutional.&nbsp;&nbsp;On April 18, less than three weeks after oral argument, the Court ruled 7-1 that its 2015 decision in&nbsp;<em>Johnson v. United States</em>&nbsp;must be applied&nbsp;retroactively to persons whose convictions became final before&nbsp;<em>Johnson&nbsp;</em>was decided.</p> <p> In&nbsp;<em>Johnson</em>, the Court struck down the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)—a catchall provision that courts had relied upon for approximately 30 years to increase a defendant’s sentence for an illegal&nbsp;possession of a firearm&nbsp;from a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment to a minimum of 15 years’ imprisonment&nbsp;and up to life imprisonment.&nbsp; Under ACCA, that increase in sentence&nbsp;was mandatory if the defendant had at least three prior convictions for a serious drug offense or a “violent felony,” which included any conduct that presented “a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>Johnson</em>&nbsp;held that&nbsp;this&nbsp;definition of “violent felony&quot; is unconstitutionally vague.</p> <p> On March 30, fifth-year Associate <a href="">Amir H. Ali</a> argued that the Court’s holding in&nbsp;<em>Johnson&nbsp;</em>must be applied retroactively to persons like Mr. Welch, whose conviction and sentence became final before&nbsp;<em>Johnson</em>&nbsp;was decided.&nbsp; The case resolves a significant split among the circuits, under which prisoners in some states have been re-sentenced or released under<em>Johnson</em>, while prisoners in other states have been denied relief from their unconstitutionally imposed sentences.</p> <p> In addition to Mr. Ali and Partner <a href="">Lindsay C. Harrison</a>, the team also includes Partner <a href="">Matthew E. Price</a>; Associates <a href="">R. Trent McCotter</a>, <a href="">Joshua M. Parker</a> and <a href="">Benjamin M. Eidelson</a>; Law Clerk Adrienne Benson; Senior Paralegal Cheryl Olson; Docketing Assistant Tyler Edwards; and Legal Secretaries Beth Gulden and Curlene Wellington.</p> 18 Apr 2016 <i>Variety</i> Names Four Content, Media & Entertainment Partners as 2016 Legal Impact Honorees <p> Four Jenner &amp; Block Content, Media &amp; Entertainment partners – <a href="">Andrew H. Bart</a>, <a href="">Kenneth L. Doroshow</a>, <a href="">Daniel A. Rozansky</a> and <a href="">Andrew J. Thomas</a> – are recognized in <em>Variety’s </em>2016 “<a href="">Legal Impact Report</a>,” a listing of the top lawyers in the entertainment industry.&nbsp; Representing Jenner &amp; Block’s coast-to-coast capabilities in the media and entertainment space, these four lawyersare among only 22 litigators named in the report, which also includes in-house and transactional lawyers.</p> <p> Each year, <em>Variety</em> profiles its choices as the best legal minds in the entertainment business, based on the impact they have had over the previous 12 to 18 months.</p> <p> In its profile of Mr. Bart and Mr. Rozansky, <em>Variety</em> highlights their representation of rap superstar Jay Z in a music sampling lawsuit in which he was a defendant; a federal district court quickly dismissed the suit.&nbsp; Mr. Bart is noted for representing music and film clients, including Universal Music Group, Sony Music and Warner Bros. Pictures.&nbsp; Mr. Rozansky is noted for covering entertainment finance, implied-in-fact contracts, rights of privacy and publicity and reality TV, with clients including the Kardashians, Bunim/Murray Productions and Ryan Seacrest Productions.</p> <p> In its profile of Mr. Doroshow and Mr. Thomas, <em>Variety</em> highlights their work in the fast-changing digital landscape where tech and content businesses overlap.&nbsp; Mr. Doroshow is noted for focusing his practice on intellectual property and content protection, with clients including trade organizations such as the Entertainment Software Association, the Motion Picture Association of America,the Recording Industry Association of America and several of their members.&nbsp;&nbsp; Mr. Thomas is noted for focusing his practice on intellectual property litigation, with clients including NBCUniversal, Warner Bros. and Fox.</p> 12 Apr 2016 Jenner & Block Wins $940 Million Trade Secrets Verdict for Epic Systems Corp. <p> On April 15, 2016, a federal jury in Madison, Wisconsin returned a $940 million trade secrets verdict for Jenner &amp; Block client Epic Systems Corp., one of the leading health care software companies in the United States, in a substantial corporate espionage case against Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), which is a part of one of the largest industrial conglomerates in India.&nbsp; After a 10-day trial, an eight-member jury found that TCS, a hired consultant, stole Epic’s trade secrets and other confidential information about Epic’s proprietary software.&nbsp; The verdict represents one of the largest trade secrets verdicts in US history and perhaps the largest verdict of any kind in Wisconsin.</p> <p> Based in Verona, Wisconsin, Epic creates software for health care companies to manage their medical and health care records and other information, all focused on the patient; its software houses more than 190 million medical records worldwide.&nbsp; In 2003, Kaiser Permanente, the nation’s largest managed health care organization, chose Epic as its provider of health care software to help manage Kaiser’s patient and medical records.&nbsp; As part of the process for testing Epic’s software, Kaiser hired TCS to provide hundreds of consultants to do the testing, mostly in India but also in the United States. &nbsp;</p> <p> Epic alleged that TCS workers, using improperly obtained credentials to access Epic’s Internet portal, tapped into Epic’s trade secrets and other confidential information, gaining access to more than 6,000 documents that have not been accounted for.&nbsp; Epic filed a federal lawsuit in 2014 accusing TCS of computer fraud, stealing trade secrets and breach of contract, and contending, in part, that TCS used Epic’s trade secrets and other confidential information to benefit TCS’s competing health care software product, Med Mantra.</p> <p> The jury awarded Epic $240 million in compensatory damages and $700 million in punitive damages. After receiving the jury’s verdict, the court indicated that it was likely to reduce the damages, enter a permanent worldwide injunction and impose sanctions for TCS’s discovery misconduct.</p> <p> Partner <a href="">Rick Richmond</a> led the trial team, which also comprised Partners <a href="">Nick G. Saros</a>, <a href="">Julie Ann Shepard</a> and <a href="">Kelly M. Morrison</a>; Associates <a href="">AnnaMarie A. Van Hoesen</a>, <a href="">Andrew G. Sullivan</a> and <a href="">Mara Ludmer</a>; Staff Attorney Rasheda D. Kilpatrick; paralegal Diana Vuong; executive assistant Evelyne Torres; and legal secretary Tracie A. McDaniel.&nbsp; Partner <a href="">Brent Caslin</a> provided support at several critical stages of the litigation.&nbsp; Additional contributions came from Associates <a href="">Kate T. Spelman</a>, <a href="">Kathleen J. Covarrubias</a>, <a href="">Peter Goldschmidt</a> and <a href="">Max T. Selfridge</a>; senior paralegal Christopher Ward; paralegals Charles Cheng and Robert Perrone; project assistant Julian Valenzuela; and legal secretary Alison Blackburn.</p> 15 Apr 2016 Judge Grants Preliminary Approval of New York Access-A-Ride Settlement <p> On April 18, 2016, federal Judge Ronnie Abrams granted preliminary approval to a groundbreaking settlement with the New York City Transit Authority.&nbsp; Working as co-counsel with New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI), the firm represented a class of disabled New Yorkers who are limited-English-proficient and alleged that they were subjected to discriminatory treatment when applying for or trying to use Access-A-Ride, the city’s accessible public transport service for people with disabilities.&nbsp; New York City Transit operates Access-A-Ride.</p> <p> Under the terms of the settlement, New York City Transit will create a comprehensive plan to provide interpretation and translation services to limited-English-proficient New Yorkers and make Access-A-Ride equally available to the tens of thousands of New Yorkers with disabilities who do not speak English well.&nbsp;</p> <p> NYLPI is a public interest law firm that represents marginalized New Yorkers.&nbsp; The firm team included Partner <a href="">Richard F. Ziegler</a> and Associate <a href="">Justin O. Spiegel</a>. &nbsp;In a NYLPI <a href="">press release</a>, Mr. Ziegler is quoted saying that “we were delighted to work closely with the top-notch and committed lawyers at NYLPI’s Disability Justice Program to help vindicate the legal rights of New Yorkers with disabilities who cannot speak English well.”</p> 18 Apr 2016 In Voting Rights Case, Firm Wins US Supreme Court Victory on Behalf of Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission <p> The firm won a victory before the US Supreme Court on behalf of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) in a high-profile voting rights case.&nbsp; The appellants argued that the AIRC created a legislative district map that&nbsp; violated the “one-person, one-vote” principle.&nbsp; The firm argued that what the challengers described as partisanship was actually a “good-faith” effort by the AIRC to comply with the Voting Rights Act and that the deviations in numbers of voters were minor and made for a legitimate purpose.&nbsp;&nbsp; A district court upheld the map and, on April 20, 2016, the <a href="">Court held</a> that the lower court “did not err in upholding Arizona’s redistricting&nbsp; plan.”</p> <p> In <em>Harris et. al. v. Arizona Independent Redistricting&nbsp; Commission</em>, the firm represented the five-member independent commission that Arizona voters established in 2000 to remove politics from redistricting.&nbsp; The appellants are a group of Arizona voters who contended that,&nbsp; in the redistricting that followed the 2010 census, the AIRC deliberately put too many voters in 16 Republican districts and put too few in 11 Democratic districts, violating the one-person, one-vote principle.&nbsp; A three-judge federal district court upheld the AIRC’s map, concluding that the deviations were “primarily a result of good-faith efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act . . . even though partisanship played some role,” according to the Court’s opinion.</p> <p> The questions before the Court were (1) whether the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justifies intentionally creating modestly over- and under-populated state legislative districts and (2) whether the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department can justify such population variations.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p> “This is a case where you wonder:&nbsp; where’s the beef?” Partner <a href="">Paul M. Smith</a> told the Court in last December’s oral argument, his 17<sup>th</sup> before the Court. “What exactly are we here for? There’s no problem with this map.&nbsp; It’s not a racial gerrymander.&nbsp; It’s within the 10 percent boundary.&nbsp; They did everything in the open.”&nbsp;</p> <p> According to the Court’s opinion, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires States to “make an honest and good-faith effort” to create legislative districts of nearly equal population as possible -- but “mathematical perfection” is not required.&nbsp; Deviations may be justified, the opinion says, in cases of legitimate consideration such as compactness and contiguity.&nbsp; The Court also held that the appellants failed to show that the deviations were made to secure political advantage for the Democratic Party.&nbsp; The unanimous opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer called the appellant’s additional arguments “unpersuasive,” adding that “while Arizona’s Democratic-leaning districts may be somewhat underpopulated and its Republican-leaning districts somewhat overpopulated, these variations may reflect only the tendency of Arizona’s 2010 minority populations to vote disproportionately for Democrats and thus can be explained by the Commission’s efforts to maintain at least 10 ability-to-elect districts.”</p> <p> In addition to Mr. Smith, the firm team included Partner <a href="">Jessica Ring Amunson</a>, Associates <a href="">Emily L. Chapuis</a>, <a href="">Zachary C. Schauf</a> and <a href="">Alex S. Trepp</a>, Paralegal Cheryl Olson and Legal Secretary Carolyn Huggins.</p> 20 Apr 2016 Partner and Litigation Department Chair Craig Martin Featured in Bloomberg Article <p> Jenner &amp; Block&nbsp; Partner <a href="">Craig C. Martin</a>, chair of the Litigation Department, is featured in a profile by Bloomberg BNA Big Law Business.&nbsp; Titled “<a href="">The New Chair of a 102-Year-Old Litigation Practice</a>,” the article includes Mr. Martin’s insights on a variety of questions, including his thoughts on how the firm’s Litigation Department has evolved and his goals for the department going forward.&nbsp; Mr. Martin tells Bloomberg:&nbsp; “We want to heighten our profile so people understand what is here.&nbsp;&nbsp; We want them to understand this is a litigation department that has the scope and breadth to handle any problem at the highest levels.”&nbsp; Of his leadership style, Mr. Martin says that he leads by example.&nbsp; “I am really committed to excellence in the practice of law.&nbsp; I am really committed to pro bono.&nbsp; I am really committed to the community.&nbsp; You have to do it all,” he says.</p> 15 Apr 2016 Partner Rick Richmond Named <i>American Lawyer</i> “Litigator of the Week” for Leading Trial Team in $940 Million Trade Secrets Victory <p> <em>The American Lawyer</em> has named Jenner &amp; Block Partner <a href="">Rick Richmond</a> its “<a href="">Litigator of the Week</a>” for his role in leading the team that won a $940 million jury verdict for client Epic Systems Corp.&nbsp;</p> <p> The article about Mr. Richmond noted that the verdict “may be the year’s biggest so far.&nbsp; At $940 million, it’s also one of the largest ever in a trade secrets case.”&nbsp; It explained that Jenner &amp; Block’s involvement in the case goes back to October 2014, when Partners <a href="">Nick G. Saros</a> and <a href="">Brent Caslin</a> initially filed the suit.&nbsp; In November 2015, the team won a partial summary judgment.&nbsp; The jury trial concluded on April 15, 2016, with this historic victory.</p> <p> Mr. Richmond is managing partner of the firm’s Los Angeles office.&nbsp; Other members of the team included <a href="">Julie Ann Shepard</a> and <a href="">Kelly M. Morrison</a>; Associates <a href="">AnnaMarie A. Van Hoesen</a>, <a href="">Andrew G. Sullivan</a> and <a href="">Mara Ludmer</a>; Staff Attorney Rasheda D. Kilpatrick; paralegal Diana Vuong; executive assistant Evelyne Torres; and legal secretary Tracie A. McDaniel.&nbsp; Additional contributions came from Associates <a href="">Kate T. Spelman</a>, <a href="">Kathleen J. Covarrubias</a>, <a href="">Peter Goldschmidt</a> and <a href="">Max T. Selfridge</a>; senior paralegal Christopher Ward; paralegals Charles Cheng and Robert Perrone; project assistant Julian Valenzuela; and legal secretary Alison Blackburn.</p> <p> Please click <a href="">here</a> to learn more about the Epic case.</p> 22 Apr 2016 Firm’s Amicus Brief in Michigan Criminal Case Receives Much Media Attention <p> An <u>amicus brief</u> filed by the firm in a criminal case on appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court has received a great deal of media attention in connection with the case’s oral argument on April 6, 2016.&nbsp; The case, <em>People of the State of Michigan v. Lorinda Swain</em>, involves a woman who was convicted in 2002 of the sexual abuse of her adopted son, who was 14 years old when he made the accusation.&nbsp; Ms. Swain served more than seven years of a 25- to 50-year sentence in prison before her son, as an adult, recanted his story.&nbsp; After a confirming polygraph and corroborating testimony, the original trial judge granted her motion for relief from judgment and set aside her four convictions.&nbsp;</p> <p> Since then the Michigan Court of Appeals has twice reversed her efforts to obtain a new trial.&nbsp; The case is finally before Michigan’s highest court which, in granting leave to appeal, requested briefing on the possible legal pathways and corresponding standards for relief that should apply to claims of actual innocence within the State of Michigan.</p> <p> The firm filed the amicus brief on behalf of nine current and former Michigan prosecutors, including one who previously prosecuted the case.&nbsp; Submitted at the request of the court, the brief examines the question, under Michigan law, what are the standards that must be met by a defendant alleging wrongful conviction to be granted a new trial?&nbsp; The brief, which was referenced by Ms. Swain’s attorney during the rebuttal portion of his argument, argues for a broad reading of Michigan’s statute and court rules to provide relief from convictions where there is substantial evidence that a person is actually innocent and discusses policy implications surrounding the interpretation of the law.</p> <p> The team that authored the brief was led by Associate <a href="">Chad J. Ray</a>, who was supervised and guided by Partners <a href="">Sara Tonnies Horton</a> and <a href="">Paul D. Margolis</a>.</p> <p> News of the case and the amicus brief was reported by <a href="">NPR</a>, <a href=""><em>The Detroit News</em></a>, <a href="">WIN 98.5</a> and <a href=""><em>The Daily Kos.</em></a>&nbsp; The <a href="">Innocence Network</a> website and the <a href=""><em>Battle Creek Enquirer</em></a> also carried news of Ms. Swain’s appeal.&nbsp; For more information about the case, including additional briefs that were filed and an audio recording of the oral arguments in the Michigan Supreme Court, please click <a href="">here</a>.</p> 25 Apr 2016 BuzzFeed Publishes Feature Article on Firm’s Pro Bono Client Who Hopes Disproven Arson-Investigation Techniques Will Free Him <p> Jenner &amp; Block pro bono client Adam Gray, 37, is the subject of a feature article about his attempts to seek freedom after serving 20 years in prison.&nbsp; In 1993, at age 14, Mr. Gray confessed to and was later convicted of setting a fire that killed two people.&nbsp; In 1996, he was sentenced to life in prison. &nbsp; At the time, arson investigators concluded the fire was started using an accelerant.&nbsp; Now, however, advances in fire science evidence have led many – includingthe Cook County Circuit Court – “to question whether investigators made the right call about what really happened” that night in March 1993, according to the article.&nbsp; In June, Mr. Gray will get an evidentiary hearing, where he will be given the chance to present new evidence.&nbsp; The hearing will determine whether the jury might have reached a different outcome if it had access to the new evidence.&nbsp; In the best-case scenario for Mr. Gray, he would be granteda new trial.&nbsp;</p> <p> Titled “<a href="">Making an Arsonist</a>,” the article details Mr. Gray’s case from the beginning, including when an art teacher at Chicago’s juvenile detention center who met Mr. Gray in 1994 eventually came to believe Mr. Gray to be wrongfully convicted.&nbsp; That teacher, Rebecca George, reached out to Jenner &amp; Block, providing the firm with affidavits and other materials that she had collected.&nbsp; In 2010, Associate&nbsp;<a href="">Brij B. Patnaik</a>&nbsp;came on the case, assembling three well-known fire scientiststo review the evidence.&nbsp;</p> <p> At the evidentiary hearing this&nbsp; June, the team representing Mr. Gray will make the case that he is innocent “because arson science now shows there is no way this fire could have happened the way Adam described it in his confession,” according to the article.&nbsp; Partner <a href="">Terri L. Mascherin</a>, who leads the team, is quoted as saying that “we anticipate the state will likely argue [at the evidentiary hearing] that there is other evidence of arson because Adam confessed.&nbsp; For lots of reasons, we think that the confession is not reliable.”&nbsp;</p> <p> In addition to Ms. Mascherin and Mr. Patnaik, the team representing Mr. Gray includes Partner <a href="">Daniel T. Fenske.</a></p> 13 Apr 2016 <i>InsideCounsel</i> Profiles Three Women Leaders of Privacy and Information Governance Practice <p> Jenner &amp; Block Partners <a href="">Mary Ellen Callahan</a> and <a href="">Nancy C. Libin</a> and Special Counsel <a href="">Heidi L. Wachs</a> are featured in a profile in <em>InsideCounsel</em>.&nbsp; Titled “<a href="">Three Women Lead Jenner &amp; Block’s Privacy Group</a>,” the article describes each woman’s impact on the Privacy and Information Governance Practice and the uniqueness of having three former Chief Privacy Officers as outside counsel.&nbsp; It notes that Ms. Callahan is the former chief privacy officer for the US Department of Homeland Security who chairs the practice and advises clients on privacy- and cybersecurity-related matters.&nbsp; Ms. Libin, former chief privacy and civil liberties officer at the Justice Department, focuses on consumer protection and privacy, as well as national security and cybersecurity issues.&nbsp; Ms. Wachs, former chief privacy officer at Georgetown University, focuses on privacy, breach response and data security compliance.</p> 19 Apr 2016 Partner and Litigation Department Chair Craig Martin Joins Initiative to Increase Legal Services for the Poor <p> Jenner &amp; Block Partner and Litigation Department Chair <a href="">Craig C. Martin</a> has joined a new initiative to raise awareness for increased funding of legal services for the poor.&nbsp; Announced recently at the White House,&nbsp; the Leaders Council of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) will have about 30 members, including other prominent lawyers and non-lawyers such as University of Michigan football coach Jim Harbaugh and Viacom Vice Chairman Shari Redstone.&nbsp; LSC is an independent nonprofit established by Congress in 1974 to provide financial support for civil legal aid to low-income Americans.&nbsp; It currently provides funding to 134 independent nonprofit legal aid programs in every state, the District of Columbia and US territories.&nbsp; According to an <a href="">article in <em>The American Lawyer</em></a>, the creation of the Leaders Council represents a new approach for the LSC.&nbsp; The article quotes LSC President James Sandman saying that “the first step to more funding is more awareness.”</p> 19 Apr 2016 Partners Jason Osborn and Melissa Root Selected as “Emerging Leaders” by <i>The M&A Advisor</i> <p> Jenner &amp; Block Partners <a href="">Jason D. Osborn</a> and <a href="">Melissa M. Root</a> have been selected as “Emerging Leaders” in the legal advisor category by <em>The M&amp;A Advisor</em>.&nbsp; They will be honored at a black-tie awards gala in New York on June 10, 2016.&nbsp; The 2016&nbsp; winners were chosen from a pool of prominent nominees for their notable accomplishments in business and in service to the community.&nbsp;</p> <p> “The Annual <em>M&amp;A Advisor </em>Emerging Leaders Awards was born as the 40 Under 40 Awards in the United States in 2010 to recognize and celebrate the achievements of young M&amp;A, financing and turnaround professionals who had reached a significant level of success and made a notable contribution to their industry and community. With the expansion of the Emerging Leaders program to the United Kingdom, and Europe earlier this year, the 2016 US award winners join a truly global network of young leaders,” said David Fergusson, president and co-CEO of <em>The M&amp;A Advisor</em>.</p> <p> Mr. Osborn is a member of the firm’s Private Equity and Mergers and Acquisitions Practices and leads the firm’s Corporate Innovation Task Force.&nbsp; He counsels clients on their business development strategies and regularly represents private equity funds and public and private company clients in complex transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, going-private transactions, joint ventures, divestures, private financings, recapitalizations and restructurings, and in related corporate governance, executive compensation and general corporate matters.</p> <p> Ms. Root is a member of the firm’s Restructuring and Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy Litigation and ERISA Litigation practices.&nbsp; She is a bankruptcy lawyerexperienced in sizeable bankruptcy cases.&nbsp; She frequently represents parties in large complex bankruptcy litigation matters and also frequently represents debtors and trustees in Chapter 11 cases.</p> 28 Apr 2016 Firm Wins Chance for Pro Bono Client Convicted of Murder to Show Actual Innocence <p> On April 19, 2016, the Winnebago County, Illinois Circuit Court denied the State’s motion to dismiss Jenner &amp; Block pro bono client Patrick Pursley’s Post-Conviction Petition Based on Actual Innocence, clearing the way for Mr. Pursley to proceed to an evidentiary hearing at which the firm will present powerful new forensic evidence of his innocence.</p> <p> In 1994, Mr. Pursley was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.&nbsp; At trial, the State’s firearm and toolmark expert testified that markings on the bullets and shell casings recovered from the crime scene matched the gun linked to Mr. Pursley “to the exclusion of all other firearms.”&nbsp; This ballistics testimony was the linchpin of the State’s case.&nbsp; No eyewitness placed Mr. Pursley at the scene, nor was there any fingerprint, DNA, blood or other biological evidence linking him to the crime.&nbsp; The State’s other evidence at trial was the testimony of a paid informant and a second witness who recanted under oath at trial.</p> <p> Mr. Pursley has always maintained his innocence and for years, he worked tirelessly to have the ballistics evidence from his case retested.&nbsp; When the Illinois Post-Conviction Testing statute was passed in 1997, it permitted defendants to move for fingerprint or DNA testing that had not been available at trial and could prove actual innocence, but the law did not include ballistics testing.&nbsp; From his prison cell, Mr. Pursley collaborated with outside advocates to lobby for an amendment to the statute adding ballistics testing, and in 2007, he was finally successful in convincing the Illinois Legislature to amend the law.</p> <p> But Mr. Pursley’s motion for post-conviction testing under the new law continued to be denied until Jenner &amp; Block Partners <a href="">Robert R. Stauffer</a> and <a href="">Andrew W. Vail</a>, former associate Kyle A. Palazzolo and Professor Steven Drizin of Northwestern Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions convinced the Illinois Second District Court of Appeals, in 2011, <a href="">to order post-conviction testing</a> – the first time that post-conviction ballistics testing would actually be performed under Illinois law.&nbsp; This hard-won development was covered by <em>The</em> <em>National Law Journal</em> in an article titled, “<a href="">This Win Required a Trip to the Legislature</a>.”</p> <p> Based on the new testing, two new experts analyzing the ballistics evidence – one from the State and one from the defense – agreed that the State’s original trial expert overreached in his testimony.&nbsp; The new Illinois State Police forensic report concluded that the bullets recovered from the crime scene&nbsp;could not be “identified or eliminated as having been fired” from the gun belonging to Mr. Pursley. &nbsp;The defense expert’s opinion was that neither the cartridges nor the bullets came from the gun linked to him.&nbsp; Armed with the new ballistics test results, Mr. Pursley filed a petition seeking a new trial based on actual innocence; the State filed a motion to dismiss.&nbsp; With the denial of the State’s motion, the case now advances to a third-stage evidentiary hearing. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p> Mr. Vail and Associate <a href="">Ashley Waddell Tingstad</a> argued in favor of a new hearing for Mr. Pursley with assistance from Mr. Stauffer and Professor Drizin.&nbsp; Legal Secretary Michelle M. Churlin, Project Assistant Eric T. Herling and Paralegal John M. Sachs provided valuable support.</p> 19 Apr 2016 Partner Neil Barofsky Discusses Treasury’s Proposed Identification Requirement with Bloomberg <p> Jenner &amp; Block Partner <a href="">Neil M. Barofsky</a> wrote an editorial for and was interviewed by Bloomberg regarding the US Treasury Department’s proposed identification requirement that would require banks to gather basic information about the owners of new bank accounts held by shell companies.&nbsp;</p> <p> Titled “<a href="">US Treasury Takes a Stand for Transparency</a>,” Mr. Barofsky’s editorial in <em>Bloomberg View</em> argues that the reform makes sense and already is required in sophisticated financial centers throughout the world.&nbsp; Mr. Barofsky observes that the proposed rule would be good for everyone, including the banks it intends to regulate.&nbsp; “Compliance with the rule will help support regulatory efforts to better shape the culture of US banks, by forcing them to take responsibility for truly knowing their customers.&nbsp; More importantly, when you balance the benefits of more effective policing of criminal activities with the costs of an additional compliance burden, the trade-off seems modest,” he writes.</p> <p> In a segment on “<a href=";order=U16790US">Bloomberg Surveillance</a>,” Mr. Barofsky says that the reform is a “good step, and it’s encouraging that Treasury is moving on it.”</p> <p> Finally, “Bloomberg Surveillance” also spoke with Mr. Barofsky about his tenure as the first special inspector general of the historic US$700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program from 2008-2011.&nbsp;&nbsp; He calls the role one highlight of his career and observes that “we’re probably safer than we were in 2008.”</p> 25 Apr 2016 Firm Wins Victory for Nissan in Patent Infringement Disputes <p> Jenner &amp; Block secured significant victories for client Nissan North America, Inc. when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated patent claims asserted by Diamond Coating Technologies (DCT).&nbsp;</p> <p> DCT had sued Nissan North America Inc. and Hyundai Motor America in separate actions. DCT alleged that engine parts in Nissan vehicles infringe claims 3 - 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,354,008, generally directed to a diamond-like or hard carbon coating arrangement that provides protection and favorable friction properties.</p> <p> The car makers, along with Hitachi Automotive Systems Ltd., petitioned for inter partes review, challenging the validity of claims 3 - 5.&nbsp; On April 20, the PTAB agreed with Hyundai and Nissan, finding that claims 3 and 5 were anticipated, while claim 4 was obvious in light of the prior art.</p> <p> DCT also alleged Nissan engine parts infringed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,066,399, which relates to a hard carbon or diamond-like thin film formed on a substrate, wherein the film has a graded structure.&nbsp; The PTAB invalidated that claim as anticipated on April 20 as well.</p> <p> Finally, in view of the decisions on behalf of the automotive companies, DCT on April 22 voluntarily dismissed related district court litigation.&nbsp;</p> <p> The firm team representing Nissan was led by Partner <a href="">Reginald J. Hill</a> and included Partner <a href="">Peter J. Brennan</a>, Associates <a href="">Rachel C. Bell</a> and <a href="">Chad J. Ray</a>, and Senior Paralegal David Nelson.</p> 20 Apr 2016 Partners Andrew Bart and Richard Stone Named 2016 “Power Lawyers” by <i>The Hollywood Reporter</i> <p> Jenner &amp; Block Partners <a href="">Andrew H. Bart</a> and <a href="">Richard L. Stone</a>, co-chairs of the firm’s Content, Media &amp; Entertainment Practice, have been recognized as among the top 100 “Power Lawyers” by <em>The Hollywood Reporter </em>(<em>THR</em>).&nbsp; Each year, <em>THR</em> researches major deals and lawsuits in the entertainment industry “to determine the 100 most influential attorneys in Hollywood.”&nbsp; In its profile of Mr. Bart, <em>THR</em> notes that he won a $50 million judgment against streaming music website Grooveshark on behalf of UMG Recordings, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group.&nbsp; The article also notes that he successfully defended rap superstar Jay Z in a copyright infringement case.&nbsp; The profile of Mr. Stone highlights his representation of Fox Television Stations in&nbsp; a copyright dispute against FilmOn and his defense of WME-IMG against NCAA athletes who are demanding compensation for their participation in televised games</p> 5 May 2016