Practice Areas & Industries: Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP


Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group

Practice/Industry Group Overview

Edwards Wildman has skilled appellate lawyers who have made winning arguments and filed winning briefs in federal and state appellate courts around the country. In addition to prevailing in appeals of cases we handled at the trial level, we are also called upon to handle high stakes appeals in cases tried by others, and to submit amicus briefs in cases involving important legal issues. For example, we:

  • Acted as trial and appellate counsel in a multi-billion dollar Hatch Waxman pharmaceutical litigation involving generic ANDA attacks on diabetes drug patent, and successfully defended patent challenges and appeals filed by generic manufacturers. We also acted as lead counsel on attorneys' fees petition in which over $17 million was awarded to the patent holder.
  • Represented a national retailer and independent distributor of hair care products, who were sued for trademark infringement, dilution, tarnishing, and unfair competition stemming from their packaging together and resale, under the plaintiff’s trademarks, of various combinations of genuine hair care merchandise. Summary judgment was granted to our clients by the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissing all claims against them. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in a unanimous decision.
  • Represented a French advanced substrates semiconductor wafer manufacturer in arbitration against the largest US silicon wafer manufacturer, we prevailed on every non-compete and trade secret claim, and won an award of our client's attorneys' fees. The award was confirmed in Federal Court and then by the Court of Appeals, ultimately resulting in the payment of more than $200,000 of legal fees by our adversary.
  • Defended against a purported nationwide securities class action against our client, MicroFinancial, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors, which the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where their appeal was also dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs did not receive any payments or concessions of any nature from our clients.
  • Convinced the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a case of first impression by any federal appellate court in the country, to hold that a party may bring an action in federal court for relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which prohibits the transmission of unsolicited advertisements via facsimile or pre-recorded voice telephone calls.
  • Represented a national life insurance carrier in connection with Texas appellate proceedings arising out of a dispute with one of its brokers that resulted in the reversal of a $12 million trial court judgment.
  • Prevailed in the Connecticut Appellate Court which upheld summary judgment dismissing a nine-count complaint in its entirety, which alleged breach of express and implied contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful discharge, non-payment of wages and benefits, promissory estoppel, defamation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
  • Successfully represented a global packaging solutions company in patent infringement litigation. Our client had filed the suit against two major industry competitors in May 2011, claiming they each infringed its patents covering an “invisible” dip tube attached to a spray pump for a perfume bottle that seems to disappear when immersed in liquid. The district court found that the defendants did not directly infringe the perfume-specific claims of the two patents, but did infringe the generic dispenser claims of the ‘132 patent, a continuation of the ‘819 patent. The district court entered a permanent injunction against the defendants. The trial court’s claim constructions and infringement determinations were affirmed on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, although the Federal Circuit reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment of non-obviousness on the basis that fact issues existed, and remanded that issue to the trial court for further proceedings.