Federal and State Appellate Courts

In addition to our Supreme Court presence, Sidley lawyers have appeared in every federal court of appeals, as well as numerous state appellate courts. In the last five years, members of the Appellate practice filed briefs in more than 360 cases in the United States Courts of Appeals, presenting argument in almost 60 percent of the appeals. Sidley lawyers have argued more than 550 cases in federal appellate courts since 1985.

Representative Victories in Federal and State Appellate Courts

• Microsoft Corp v. Motorola Mobility Inc., 795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015): The Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict awarding Sidley client Microsoft Corp. $14.5 million after finding Motorola breached its obligation to license its standard-essential patents on fair terms. The court of appeals held that that the district court’s landmark analysis establishing the proper licensing rate for the patents was correct and that the decision setting a fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) rate for Motorola’s patents was well-reasoned. 
• EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015): Sidley represented Luminant (which headed a coalition of over 40 industry and labor petitioners) throughout a high-profile, multiyear challenge to EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The D.C. Circuit initially stayed the Rule prior to its implementation; then, in 2012, the court held that Congress authorized EPA to regulate only in proportion to each upwind state’s contribution to downwind air-quality problems and vacated the Rule in its entirety. In 2013, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit, holding that EPA did not need to require reduction obligations in “proportion.” On remand in July 2015, the D.C. Circuit found that, with regard to 13 States, EPA had in fact regulated emissions beyond its statutory authority. The court remanded to EPA with instructions to promptly correct its errors. 
• National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC, 800 F.3d 518 (D.C. Cir. 2015): Sidley obtained a second victory on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable in an ongoing case challenging, on First Amendment grounds, the “conflict minerals” rule the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. 
• AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., 782 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015): The Federal Circuit affirmed approximately $99 million of a $104 million judgment Sidley had obtained for AstraZeneca against generic drug company Apotex Corporation for infringing AstraZeneca’s formulation patents for its heartburn drug Prilosec® (omeprazole).
• Ross v. Bank of America N.A., No. 14-1610 (2d Cir. 2015): Firm clients Citigroup, Inc. and other Citi entities prevailed in this long-running antitrust case. In 2012, after a five-week trial, the district court ruled that plaintiffs had not proven that Citi and other major credit card-issuing banks had entered into an agreement to include class-action-barring arbitration clauses in cardholder agreements. In a complete victory for Citi, the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling in a summary order issued only nine days after oral argument. 
• Validus Reinsurance, Ltd. v. United States, 786 F.3d 1039 (D.C. Cir. 2015): On behalf of client Validus Reinsurance, Ltd., Sidley challenged the collection of federal excise taxes on transactions that occurred outside the United States between Validus, a Bermuda reinsurance company, and other foreign reinsurance companies. The case represents a major victory for the foreign reinsurance industry by rejecting the government’s claim that a federal excise tax applies not only when a foreign company sells reinsurance to a company insuring U.S.-based risks, but to all subsequent reinsurance contracts between wholly foreign companies, as long as the policies can be shown to “relate” in some way to U.S.-based risks. 
• ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp. 786 F.3d 885 (Fed. Cir. 2015): The court ruled in favor of Sidley client ArcelorMittal SA, the world’s largest steelmaker, in its appeal of a district court ruling invalidating all of the claims of its patent covering a novel form of hot-stamped steel.
• Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Von Drehle Corp., 781 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 2015): This successful appeal on behalf of Sidley client Von Drehle Corporation addressed the relief that may be granted under the Lanham Act and involved basic and novel issues of statutory construction regarding the scope of contributory trademark liability and of the proper coordination among the federal circuit courts.
• United States ex rel. Paulos v. Stryker Corporation, 762 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2014): The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision dismissing a False Claims Act suit against firm client Kimberly-Clark Corporation’s I-Flow, LLC subsidiary.
• United States ex rel. Schumann v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, 769 F.3d 837 (3d Cir. 2014): Sidley successfully represented AstraZeneca in qui tam relator Schumann’s appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint under the federal and various state false claims acts.
• Pippins v. KPMG, LLP, 2014 WL 3583899 (2d Cir. July 22, 2014): The Second Circuit rejected plaintiffs’ position in the first federal appellate decision in a series of wage and hour cases brought against Sidley client KPMG and other large accounting firms. Plaintiffs, who were audit associates, had contended that they should not be categorized as “professionals” and were thus entitled to overtime compensation under federal law.
• NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014): Sidley’s client, Portland Cement, defended EPA’s revised National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement industry (after successfully challenging the previous emission standards before the D.C. Circuit).
• Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 571 Fed. App’x 8 (2d Cir. 2014): The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of every claim in this long-running securities fraud action against Sidley’s clients in which the plaintiff had alleged market manipulation and misrepresentations in connection with its purchases of more than $100 million in auction rate securities in 2007.
• In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, 725 F.3d 244 (D.C. Cir. 2013): The D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s class certification order in this multi-district litigation, a decision that represented a significant victory for Sidley clients Union Pacific Railroad Company, BNSF Railway Company, CSX Transportation, Inc. and Norfolk Southern Railway Company. The court of appeals ruled that the district court had improperly certified a class, which had raised the total possible damages into the billions.
• United States ex rel. Fair Laboratory Practices Associates v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 734 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2013): Sidley’s client obtained a major victory in the Second Circuit in a case confronting the tension between whistleblower incentives and the professional obligations of lawyers.
• Microsoft v. ITC, 731 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013): Sidley has represented Microsoft Corporation successfully in several appeals to the Federal Circuit both challenging and defending aspects of determinations by the International Trade Commission regarding an investigation Microsoft initiated against Motorola Mobility.
• Peterson v. Somers Dublin Ltd, 729 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2013): The Seventh Circuit ruled for Sidley’s clients, holding that the “safe harbor” provisions in Sections 546(e) and 546(g) of the Bankruptcy Code precluded a bankruptcy trustee’s claims that transfers by an alleged Ponzi scheme debtor were voidable as preferences or constructively fraudulent transfers.
• eBay, Inc. v. Kelora Systems, LLC, 500 F. App’x (Fed. Cir. 2013): Sidley’s clients eBay, Inc., Microsoft Corporation and Dell, Inc. prevailed in a patent infringement case in which the plaintiff had accused thousands of websites of infringing its reexamined patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the reexamined patent was invalid.
• SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., 709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013): The Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict awarding more than $95 million to Sidley client SynQor in this patent infringement case, rejecting 12 separate challenges to SynQor’s final judgment for over $114 million and affirming the award in full.
• Raskas v. Johnson & Johnson, 719 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2013): The Eighth Circuit overturned the district court and held that the putative class action brought against our client should not be remanded from federal to state court.
• Chartis Insurance v. Iowa Insurance Commissioner, 831 N.W.2d 119 (Iowa 2013): Sidley client Chartis Insurance (AIG) prevailed when the Iowa Supreme Court held that where an individual premium was determined in accordance with the filed rates, it cannot be held unlawful, even if, as applied in a particular case, the premium appears excessive or otherwise unfair.
• McCorkle v. Bank of America Corp., 688 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 2012): In this ERISA class action, Sidley client Bank of America successfully defended against a challenge to the Bank’s pension plan based on its definition of “normal retirement age.”
• Friedman v. Sebelius, 686 F.3d 813 (D.C. Cir. 2012): Three Sidley clients, former executives of the Purdue Pharma Company, successfully challenged the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s order excluding them from participating in any federal healthcare program for 12 years because of their misdemeanor misbranding convictions under the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine, a strict-liability offense. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case to the agency, holding that the agency had failed to justify the extraordinarily lengthy exclusions.
• Meridian Horizon Fund, LP v. KPMG (Cayman), 487 F. App’x. 636 (2d Cir. 2012): Sidley client KPMG achieved two victories in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in lawsuits alleging securities fraud arising out of Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
• Pacific Gas & Electric v. U.S., 668 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2012): The Federal Circuit upheld an $89 million judgment for firm client Pacific Gas and Electric Company in a contract dispute stemming from the federal government’s failure to meet its obligation to accept PG&E’s nuclear waste for disposal.
• Mobil Pipeline Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 676 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2012): Sidley client ExxonMobil prevailed in its legal fight with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) over the rates it can charge shippers on the Mobil Pipe Line Company Pegasus pipeline, which runs from Illinois to Texas.
• Sioux Honey Assn. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company XL, 672 F.3d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2012): The Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Sidley client The Hartford and its co-defendants in an antidumping case, holding that the Court of International Court of Trade had lacked jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs were not intended third party beneficiaries of contracts that our clients had entered into with importers and the United States.
• Transport Insurance Co. v. TIG Insurance Co., 202 Cal. App. 4th 984 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012): The California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Sidley client TIG Insurance Company in a reinsurance dispute in which the plaintiff challenged jury instructions it had drafted.
• Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012): The Federal Circuit reversed a judgment of more than $58 million against the company in a patent infringement case concerning a lamp installed in the side rear-view mirror of many Ford vehicles.