Source: https://www.kbslaw.com/Representative-Matters.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:42:21+00:00

Document:
Power Analytics Corp. v. Operation Technology, Inc. d/b/a ETAP, et al. (D. Del.) – A matter involving antitrust, patent infringement, false advertising and related state law claims filed against our client ETAP (and other defendants) concerning software used in power grids in data centers and nuclear power plants. KBS serves as lead antitrust defense counsel for ETAP.
DotconnectAfricaTrust v. ICANN and ZA Central Registry (C.D. Cal.) - A matter involving the award of the generic top-level domain name, .Africa. KBS represents ZA Central Registry in defense of various business tort claims filed by an African competitor that failed to prevail in the bidding process with ICANN.
Steinbeck v. Waverly, et al. (C.D. Cal.) – A copyright infringement matter in which KBS and co-counsel represent defendant Dramatist Play Services, the licensee of copyrights in certain of John Steinbeck's plays, against John Steinbeck's estranged son and granddaughter.
Kofi Kessey, M.D., Ph.D. v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center (Ventura Super. Ct.) – KBS and co-counsel represent a neurosurgeon asserting whistleblower claims against a hospital for terminating his emergency call contract after he raised concerns about patient safety.
Market Lofts Community Association v. 9th Street Market Lofts LLC (L.A. Super. Ct.) – A matter in which KBS represents Plaintiff Market Lofts Community Association against some of the largest developers in Los Angeles asserting breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and related claims based on the developers' wrongfully stripping away valuable property rights from homeowners.
Bararsani, et al. v. Coldwell Banker Residential Mortgage Co. (L.A. Super. Ct.) – KBS and co-counsel were appointed class counsel for a class of real estate agents and sales associates who alleged that they had been improperly classified as independent contractors instead of employees. The case successfully settled on a class-wide basis for $4.5 million.
Anderson v. County of Ventura (Ventura Super. Ct.) – KBS and co-counsel represented a opt-in class of social workers against Ventura county based on willful misclassification to avoid overtime payment. The case successfully settled, providing the social workers a $3.8 million recovery plus attorneys' fees.
Folex Golf Industries, Inc. v. China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, et al. (C.D. Cal.) – An international dispute involving business tort and unfair competition claims in which KBS, along with co-counsel, represent defendant O-TA Precision Industries Co. Ltd., a leading Taiwan-based manufacturer of golf equipment.
American Institute of Intradermal Cosmetics v. Society of Permanent Cosmetic Procedures (C.D. Cal.) – KBS represented a manufacturer and distributor of permanent cosmetic products in an alleged group boycott action against direct competitors and their trade association.
Alan Darush MD, APC v. Revision, L.P., et al. (C.D. Cal.) - A vertical price-fixing case in which Mr. Kesselman and Mr. Stockinger represented a distributor of skin care products against the manufacturer. The Court denied the motion to dismiss filed against our client, issuing one of the first opinions reaffirming California's application of the per se rule relating to resale price maintenance after the United States Supreme Court opinion in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.
TiVo v. AT&T Inc. (E.D. Tex.) - A patent infringement case in which Mr. Stockinger represented TiVo, the developer of the first commercially available digital video recorder (DVR). TiVo sued AT&T for infringement of patents covering fundamental DVR technology. Mr. Stockinger spearheaded the team concerning damages, including working with experts to create a market analysis relating to lost sales.
SmithKline Beecham d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) - A case involving antitrust, contract and North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims brought by GSK, Mr. Stockinger's client, against Abbott based on Abbott's massive price hike of a drug used for the treatment of HIV/AIDS.
Masimo Corp. v. Tyco Healthcare Group (C.D. Cal) – Ms. Brantly was part of the team that represented Masimo, a dynamic healthcare company, against Tyco in an antitrust case involving challenges to exclusionary contracting practices, including exclusive dealing with OEMs, exclusionary loyalty discounts and sole-source contracts. The case followed a patent infringement litigation filed by Masimo against Tyco.
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., (Cal. Supreme Court) – Mr. Kesselman was part of the team that represented a U.S.‑based company against a large multinational conglomerate in a business interference lawsuit involving military procurement contracts in the Republic of Korea. Mr. Kesselman was the primary author of the briefs at the California Supreme Court that resulted in the landmark decision in Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Co., 29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003). The case resolved after trial.
Tessera v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al. (E.D. Cal.) – A patent and antitrust matter in which Mr. Stockinger represented Tessera. The case involved group boycott and price fixing claims in the DRAM market, as well as patent infringement claims concerning semiconductor packaging technology. Mr. Stockinger played a significant role handling the antitrust claims.
Tessera Technologies, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. (San Francisco Superior Court) – Ms. Brantly represented Tessera in an antitrust action against Hynix alleging a conspiracy to boycott in the DRAM market under California's Cartwright Act.
Intergraph Corporation v. Hewlett-Packard, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – This lawsuit involved Intergraph's patent infringement claims relating to HP's microprocessor technology and HP's antitrust counterclaims asserting that Intergraph engaged in illegal tying arrangements in the market for microprocessors and microprocessor technologies. Mr. Stockinger was primarily involved in representing HP concerning the antitrust counterclaims.
Universal Surveillance Systems, Inc. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp. (S.D. Fla.) – Mr. Kesselman was part of the team that represented a competitor in monopolization and related antitrust claims involving the market for electronic security tags.
In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1663 (D.N.J.) – Ms. Brantly was part of the team that defended Lloyd's of London Syndicates in an antitrust action alleging a conspiracy involving undisclosed contingent commissions and bid-rigging.
Flagship Theatres, Inc. v. Century Theaters, Inc. and Cinemark USA, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court) - Mr. Kesselman defended a national motion picture theater chain against alleged antitrust claims brought by a competitor motion picture theater.
Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Co. v. Superior Court (San Franscisco Superior Court) - Mr. Kesselman was part of the team that defended a transportation company in an alleged below cost pricing and price discrimination lawsuit brought by a smaller competitor.
International Oncology Network Solutions v. Eagle (District Court, Collin County Texas) – Ms. Brantly defended Raintree Oncology, an emerging health care company, against a division of Amerisource Bergen in a misappropriation of trade secrets case.
White v. NCAA (C.D. Cal.) – Ms. Brantly represented college athletes in an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA involving restrictions on athletic-based financial aid.
Arminak & Associations Inc. v. MeadWestvaco Calmar Inc. (C.D. Cal.) - Mr. Kesselman was part of the team that represented a trigger sprayer supplier in a monopolization and exclusive dealing action against the dominant competitor in the market.
KSCD, Inc. v. AEG Infrarot-Module GmbH (C.D. Cal.) - Mr. Kesselman represented a distributor of military equipment against a subsidiary of Daimler in litigation involving the sale of infrared technology to the Republic of Korea.
Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC v. MeadWestvaco Corp. (C.D. Cal.) - Mr. Kesselman was part of the team that represented a competitor in monopolization, exclusive dealing and related antitrust claims involving the dated products industry.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.