A powerhouse among Midwestern firms, Husch Blackwell has a network of outposts beyond its Missouri roots to include Wisconsin, Nebraska, Illinois, Texas, and California, with both virtual offices and physical offices. The firm developed its plan for virtual offices before the Covid pandemic, which gave it a jump on competitors. Virtual offices also made it possible for the firm to widen its talent pipeline.
Clients retain the firm for an array of practice areas including employment, False Claims Act lawsuits, liability, commercial disputes, arbitrations, and Lanham Act lawsuits. One client describes the firm’s successful assistance in reference to “a large, complicated coverage matter with many moving parts, involving tenuous liability and significant inflammatory damages.” The same client commends the team’s ability to “think problems through, deal with complex coverage issues, and partner to find solutions.” Clients also appreciate the firm’s overall client relationships, praising the teams they worked with for “understanding our business” and providing “business-minded advice.”
“Husch Blackwell has a deep understanding of the pharma industry and provides efficient and practical advice on a variety of pharma-related issues.” Another client, commenting on the firm’s team organization and expertise adds, “They are extremely diversified and seem to have an expert in every area of the law.”
Kansas City partner Jeffrey Simon has experience handling cases in a wide variety of disciplines. As co-counsel, Simon represents Provisur Technologies in its patent infringement case filed against Weber in the Western District of Missouri. After a 10-day trial, the jury found that the defendants infringed on three of the four patents and awarded full damages. In a separate matter, Simon was lead counsel to the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners defending a KCPD officer against claims of civil-rights violations in connection with the fatal shooting of a suspect. After an adverse summary judgment motion decision, Simon argued the appeal before the Eighth Circuit, which reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration. The trial court granted summary judgment on remand, dismissing the case entirely. The plaintiff appealed again to the Eighth Circuit, which Simon again argued and won.
In St. Louis, Chris Smith offers his commercial litigation expertise to healthcare clients throughout the country. He was lead counsel to Cigna and Express Scripts against New York City Transit Authority, which alleged that it was damaged by increasing prescription drug costs and healthcare fraud by its employees. The case was tried in front of a jury in the Southern District of New York in March 2023, where the jury returned a verdict in favor of Express Scripts. In New Mexico, Smith represents Centene in a class action alleging the client is obligated to provide medical marijuana coverage within the state. The issue of jurisdiction is being litigated currently, as Smith moved the matter to the District of New Mexico, arguing that it is a federal issue. The plaintiffs have moved to remand the matter, and that motion is pending.
St. Louis-based intellectual property specialist Rudy Telscher represents Motion Control in a patent infringement case involving prosthetic hands. In a lawsuit, Vincent Systems alleges that a glued-finger component is axially moveable and infringing on Vincent Systems’ patent. The matter is currently in discovery.
Beau Jackson of the Kansas City office is an International Trade Commission specialist. He represented Calico in an ITC matter regarding cannabis oil-vaping cartridges. This case went to trial before the ITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge in August 2022. In February 2023, the judge issued a decision finding no violations. He also initiated an action for Dometic seeking ITC relief against four companies that are importing and selling marine air conditioning products alleged to infringe on a Dometic patent. The company contends its technology is being outsourced for production in China. The case was tried before the judge in September 2023, and a final ITC decision is expected in 2024.
A Chicago-based intellectual property star with an emphasis on the life sciences industry, Don Mizerk is described as being “very experienced in a variety of matters related to FDA-approved pharmaceuticals.” He recently defended Sigmapharm Laboratories in an ANDA dispute filed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals after the client sought approval for its generic version of the antidepressant vortioxetine. Mizerk took the case to trial before a Judge in the District of Delaware, who found that the client’s generic version would not infringe any patents-in-suit.
Marnie Jensen, of the Omaha, Nebraska office, is a sought-after expert for food and agriculture matters among other government relations cases. One client remarks, “She is incredibly personable, knows our business, and is our go-to person for food issues.” Milwaukee partner Ann Maher has a deep expertise in handling litigation and receives praise for her emphasis on client relationships. “She listens to the problem and asks appropriate questions to gather information, provides advice regarding strategy, and has great follow-through,” one client describes. “Ann is honest in her opinions. If we have some or complete culpability, she will tell you. If not, she is a great defender.”
Maher represents Cleaver-Brooks in a case filed by a former distributor. The lawsuit alleges the client’s termination of the distributor agreement violated the Minnesota Franchise Act. She prevailed against the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in the District of Minnesota and received a summary judgment as to all the plaintiff’s claims.
Lorinda Holloway is a litigation star praised by clients for her talent across specialties. “She is very knowledgeable, takes a practical approach, and is extremely responsive,” notes a client. Holloway is active in litigation on behalf of clients in the healthcare industry. She represented Hospital Internists of Austin (“HIA”) against TeamHealth. HIA sued TeamHealth for breach of contract and for tortious interference with existing contracts. After two weeks of trial testimony, the jury deliberated for nearly a day and a half. Unanimous on all but one question, the jury awarded HIA (and two additional client entities) a total of $10.4 million.
