Monica Braun

Patent Infringement, False Advertisement & Antitrust

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, et al., Case No. 10-564-MRB (S.D. of Ohio)

SKO, along with Sidley Austin LLP and Banner & Witcoff, represented Lexmark in a closely-watched patent case at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In a dispute brought by Lexmark over remanufactured printer cartridges, the Federal Circuit held in Lexmark’s favor on domestic and international patent exhaustion issues.  The case is now pending before the United States Supreme Court and will be argued on March 21, 2017.

Shareholder Class Action

Margie Elstein v. Lexmark International, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 16-CI-02380 (Fayette Circuit Court)

SKO represented Lexmark in successfully dismissing a proposed class action lawsuit filed by a shareholder claiming Lexmark’s merger agreement with a consortium of investors was unfair to shareholders. The lawsuit was filed less than a month before Lexmark’s scheduled shareholder vote.  After the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff sought a temporary injunction enjoining the shareholder vote.  Steven argued that the case should be dismissed because Lexmark’s bylaws require the case be heard in the Delaware Chancery Courts.  A mere three days before the scheduled shareholder vote, the Court dismissed the lawsuit and the shareholder vote occurred as scheduled.

Constitutional Law

Jerry Jamgotchian v. Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, et al., Civil Action No. 11-CI-01047 (Franklin Circuit Court)

SKO represented the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission in a dormant commerce clause challenge filed against it by a thoroughbred owner regarding an industry-standard regulation pertaining to the purchase of horses in claiming races. SKO obtained summary judgment upholding the constitutionality of the regulation, which was affirmed on appeal by the Kentucky Court of Appeals.  The Kentucky Supreme Court accepted discretionary review.  Following briefing, Steven argued the case before the Kentucky Supreme Court.  In May 2016, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the Commission’s favor in a unanimous published opinion.

Protecting Corporation’s Control of Assets from Shareholder Interference

Paul R. Plante, Jr. v. Frank D. Marcum, et al., Civil Action No. 12-CI-0040 (Fayette Circuit Court)

When minority shareholders in a closely-held corporation caused a bank to file an interpleader action regarding control of the corporation’s funds, SKO represented the corporation, and over the objection of the minority shareholders, ensured that the corporation controlled its funds, allowing the business to continue to operate.  

Patent Infringement, False Advertisement & Antitrust

Static Control Components, Inc., et al. v. Lexmark International, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-84-GFVT (Consolidated with Action No. 02-571) (E.D. Ky) (multiple published decisions)

This multi-party, complex litigation involved Lexmark, a major provider of printing and imaging products and services. Lexmark asserted claims for, among other things, patent infringement and inducement to commit patent infringement. The lead opposing party, Static Control Components, asserted claims against Lexmark for, among other things, antitrust violations under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act and false advertising claims under the Lanham Act. Lexmark obtained dismissal of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act antitrust claims and a favorable ruling upholding Lexmark’s single-use restriction on its printer cartridges under the Uniform Commercial Code. On June 3, 2013 the United States Supreme Court granted Lexmark’s petition for writ of certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the proper test for standing to assert Lanham Act false advertising claims.  Steven argued the case in front of the Supreme Court on December 3, 2013.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim

SKO represented a client in a federal action in California involving claims of fraud and civil conspiracy in connection with a multi-million dollar equine transaction.  SKO obtained a Rule 12 dismissal of the claims against its client, but the Court granted leave to amend.  After amendment of the claims by the Plaintiff, SKO was successful in obtaining another dismissal, with prejudice.