Peter Moll

Partner
Washington,  DC  U.S.A.
Phone202 862 2220

Peer Rating
 5.0/5.0
AV® Preeminent

Client Rating

Featured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer IconFeatured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer Icon
Printer Friendly VersionEmail this PageDownload to My Outlook ContactsAdd lawyer to My FavoritesCompare this lawyer to other lawyers in your favorites

Experience & Credentials Ratings & Reviews
 

Practice Areas

  • Antitrust
  • Antitrust Litigation & Civil Investigations
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Patent & Trade Secret Litigation
 
University Boston College, B.A., summa cum laude, 1971
 
Law SchoolBoston College Law School, J.D., summa cum laude, 1975
 
Admitted1975, Massachusetts; 1976, District of Columbia; 1989, New Jersey; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana; U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits; U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court
 
Biography

Peter Moll is a seasoned trial lawyer who has tried antitrust, intellectual property and complex commercial cases in federal and state courts nationwide. He has handled claims covering a broad spectrum of legal areas, including price-fixing, vertical restraints, monopolization, mergers, trademarks, trade secrets, trade dress, false advertising, RICO, unfair and deceptive trade practices, patents, technology, defamation, the Internet, franchises, fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference, bankruptcy, distributor terminations and constitutional challenges. Peter has argued appeals before the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits, and state supreme courts. He also has represented clients in numerous class action and multi-district cases and in complex international arbitrations. In addition, he counsels clients on antitrust, distribution, franchise, trademark and technology issues.

Peter has published numerous articles and lectured extensively on trial practice, antitrust, electronic discovery and the use of multimedia in the effective presentation of evidence at trial. He has been recognized as a leading antitrust, intellectual property and business litigation lawyer in Washington, DC by Super Lawyers magazine (2009-2015).

A graduate of Boston College, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, he received his J.D., summa cum laude and Order of the Coif, from Boston College Law School, where he was an editor of the Boston College Industrial & Commercial Law Review.

Peter is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and Massachusetts; before the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Northern District of Indiana, and the District of New Jersey; before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits and the District of Columbia Circuit; and before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Experience

California Natural, Inc. v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., et al. Won a jury verdict for Nestle that it had not committed fraud or breached an alleged contract to purchase California Natural; trial involved contract, fraud, trademark and FDA issues.
Warren Distributing, et al. v. InBev USA & Anheuser-Busch, Inc.Won a verdict in favor of Anheuser-Busch after thirteen-day jury trial in federal court in Camden, New Jersey in case brought by three terminated distributors of InBev brands.
Ginsburg v. InBev nv/sa and Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. Defeated attempt by a group of consumers to obtain a preliminary injunction barring the merger of InBev nv/sa and Anheuser-Busch. Later obtained dismissal of entire case on motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In re Chocolate Antitrust Litigation. Obtained summary judgment for Nestle USA in multidistrict proceeding involving 92 cases - direct class, alleged indirect classes, opt-out lawsuits.
In re Baby Food Antitrust Litigation. Obtained summary judgment for Nestle in a nationwide class action alleging price-fixing.
Uncle Bens / Mars v. Nestle Purina. Represented NPPC in trade secret case involving former Mars employees hired by NPPC.
In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation. Obtained summary judgment for clients First Data Corp. and Concord EFS in long-standing case challenging setting of interchange fees in the ATM industry.
Novelis Corporation v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. Obtained summary judgment for Anheuser-Busch in a contract dispute relating to the purchase of aluminum cansheet.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. John Labatt Ltd. Jury trial resulting in a verdict in favor of Anheuser-Busch that defendant Labatt did not have trademark rights in the words ice beer, and that Labatt had engaged in false and injurious advertising, and awarding Anheuser-Busch $5 million in punitive damages.
Fluke Corporation v. Chauvin Arnoux. Prevailed in a jury trial to protect Flukes trade dress in which the defendant consented to entry of injunction.
MicroStrategy v. Business Objects. Won a bench trial regarding theft of MicroStrategys trade secrets.
Elscint Ltd., et al. v ADAC Laboratories Inc. Successfully represented ADAC in a bench trial involving the validity and alleged infringement of multiple patents.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. A-B Distributors, Inc. Successfully represented plaintiff Anheuser-Busch in a jury trial alleging fraudulent conduct by a wholesaler with a price-fixing counterclaim.
New York v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., et al. Won a three-month bench trial in which the State of New York challenged as an antitrust violation the adoption of exclusive distribution territories.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors. Was retained after Anheuser-Busch lost a jury trial. After obtaining a new trial, demonstrated that the defendant had intentionally destroyed evidence, engaged in fraud and committed perjury, which resulted in a judgment for Anheuser-Busch.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Beverage, Inc., et al. Won a jury verdict in favor of Anheuser-Busch that a terminated wholesaler had engaged in fraudulent conduct, with an award of damages to Anheuser-Busch.
G. Heileman Brewing Co. and Miller Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. Successfully defended Anheuser-Busch in a two-week bench trial against antitrust attempted monopolization claims by Heileman and Miller.
In re Milk Products Antitrust Litigation. Represented Land O'Lakes in purported class action alleging price-fixing. Class certification motions defeated in federal and state cases.
Maris Distributing Co., Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. Won a jury trial for Anheuser-Busch upholding distribution contract against antitrust challenge.
Package Shop, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. Obtained summary judgment for Anheuser-Busch in statewide antitrust class action.
The Mead Corporation v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. Bench trial in which Mead successfully defended against Occidental Petroleum in attempted hostile takeover of Mead.

News & Resources

NEWS

News Releases
•Cadwalader Attorneys Recognized by 2015 Washington D.C. Super Lawyers Magazine Apr 29, 2015

Recognition
•Cadwalader Attorneys Recognized by 2015 Washington D.C. Super Lawyers Magazine Apr 29, 2015

RESOURCES

Clients & Friends Memos
•U.S. District Court Confirms FTC Authority to Regulate Corporate Data Security Practices Apr 11, 2014

Newsletters

IP Insight

U.S. Federal Courts
Supreme Court, in FTC v. Actavis, Rejects the “Scope of the Patent” Test, Holding that Antitrust Law's “Rule of Reason” Analysis Can Pierce the Shield of Patent Rights Jul 09, 2013

Videos

Antitrust Litigation Apr 12, 2012

 
ISLN902428841
 


View Ratings & Reviews
Profile Visibility
#3,282 in weekly profile views out of 57,529 lawyers in Washington, District of Columbia
#108,404 in weekly profile views out of 1,714,667 total lawyers Overall

Office Information

Peter Moll

700 Sixth Street, N.W.
WashingtonDC 20001




Loading...
 

Professional Networking for Legal Professionals Only

Quickly and easily expand your professional
network - join the premier global network for legal professionals only. It's powered by the
Martindale-Hubbell database - over 1,000,000 lawyers strong.
Join Now