Source: https://www.robinskaplan.com/services/appellate-advocacy-and-guidance
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:49:55+00:00

Document:
In every appeal, different courts, judges, and rules require a fundamental shift in the strategies and skills required to achieve litigation success. Led by former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson, our appellate advocacy and guidance attorneys bring an impressive record of experience and achievement to the new reality an appeal creates. At Robins Kaplan LLP, we serve both existing firm clients and clients represented at trial by other counsel by providing case assessment and strategic appeal guidance. We also provide insight and input on brief preparation and oral advocacy. Whether we represent the appellant or a client responding to an appeal, our ability to synthesize and analyze the case, the record, and the controlling standards of review can significantly aid in the creation of compelling arguments that earn judicial and client trust as well as precedential victories.
Our experience helps clients navigate the complexities of the appellate system in an effective and cost-efficient manner. Our appellate attorneys have handled appeals in state and federal courts across the country, including the Federal Circuit. Practice leader Eric Magnuson has earned a high profile in the world of appellate courts, having served as the President of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the founding President of the 8th Circuit Bar Association, and co-chair of several ABA and state bar appellate advocacy committees. He has also authored and edited several leading texts on appellate law and practice, including Federal Appeals: Jurisdiction and Practice, the Eighth Circuit Appellate Practice Manual; and Minnesota Practice: Appellate Rules Annotated. Our clients benefit from our tactical approach and the depth of insight and unique perspectives available only to a former state supreme court chief justice.
Our appellate success is based on teamwork and concrete individual contributions. We know that many of our present and future clients are well served by capable and effective trial lawyers. Our approach is not to replace those lawyers, but to join the existing team to produce the best possible representation at all levels of the appellate litigation, beginning with the foundational efforts in the trial court, and proceeding through appellate argument and decision. As many of our clients already realize, picking the right lawyers to do the right job is often the key to success.
Celador International, Ltd. v. The Walt Disney Company: Represent Celador International, Ltd. in a dispute over profits from the highly successful television show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" A federal jury awarded Celador, the creator of the show, $270 million in damages after finding that Disney's subsidiaries, ABC Television, Buena Vista Television, and Valleycrest Productions had breached their profitsharing contract with Celador and their duty to deal fairly and in good faith with Celador. On September 27, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California awarded $50 million in prejudgment interest to Celador, bringing the total to $320 million in damages. On December 3, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the entire verdict and awarded the plaintiff its costs on appeal. On February 26, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously denied Disney’s petition for rehearing and review of the $320 million jury verdict and judgment in favor of Celador.
Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.: Represented defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and PacifiCare, Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit involving alleged price-fixing and fraud related to prescription drug reimbursement under the federal Medicare Part D program. Plaintiff Omnicare sought damages exceeding $1 billion and permanent injunctive relief. After the summary-judgment motion was argued in August 2008, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims in January 2009. Published decision: Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Ill. 2009). Summary judgment was subsequently affirmed. Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 629 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2011).
Juniper Networks v. Shipley, Obtained dismissal for inventor in a false patent marking case brought under 35 USC sec. 292 in the Northern District of California.
Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc., 626 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010): Invalidated all asserted claims of infringement against MoneyGram on three patents held by Western Union relating to methods of transferring money.
Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elec. N.V., et al., 586 F.3d 980 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Convinced the appellate court to reverse the entry of judgment on the pleadings dismissing two of Imation's key counts, and instead to order judgment for Imation on the question of whether certain entities formed or acquired later qualify as "subsidiaries" that could benefit from Imation's patent license with Philips.
Andersen v. Pella Corp. et al: Represented plaintiff Andersen Corporation in overturning a District Court decision granting the defendants summary judgment and finding that claims of the asserted patent were invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit's decision was one of the first post-KSR District Court findings of obviousness to be reversed by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for certioriari. 2007-1536, 2008-WL4927431, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2008), cert. denied.
RealSource, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., et al.: Trial and appellate counsel for Best Buy involving patent claims asserted in U. S. District Court in Austin, Texas. The plaintiff alleged Best Buy's gift cards infringed its patent, and sought more than $32 million in damages. Summary judgment was granted. The judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on June 23, 2008.
Asael Farr & Sons Co. v. Truck Ins. Exch., 193 P.3d 650 (Utah Ct. App. 2008): Affirmed summary judgment in favor of property insurer on insured's claim to recover more than $25,000 limitation of liability for product contamination losses.
Miletich v. Travelers Property & Cas. Ins. Co., No. D048409, 2007 WL 4395702 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2007): Jury trial with verdict finding insured's loss excluded by deterioration exclusion and subsequent appeal affirming summary judgment on insured's bad faith claim on grounds that jury's subsequent determination that there was no coverage for insured's claim meant that insurer could not have acted in bad faith as a matter of law.
Penton Media, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 245 Fed. Appx. 495, 2007 WL 2332323 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2007): Affirmed summary judgment granted to property insurer in 9/11 business interruption claim based on FEMA takeover of Jacob Javits Center.

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