Templar Tactical

We defended a group of investors in a national firearms company against a lawsuit brought by the company’s founder. Instead of playing defense, we developed creative counterclaims that would permit our clients to extinguish the founder’s interest in the company. Our strategy was a success. The founder voluntarily dismissed all of his claims on the eve of trial and walked away from his investment interest in the company. Our clients won a total victory and did not have to pay a penny in settlement.

Curtis Proske v. Templar Tactical Firearms Corp., et al; Cause Number 19-07-09721; In the 457th Judicial District Court, Montgomery County, Texas

F1 Firearms

We defended F1 Firearms against patent infringement claims brought by an Oregon-based parts manufacturer. We first attempted to resolve the claims amicably for a nominal payment. When that was unsuccessful, we tracked down undisclosed co-inventors on the plaintiff’s patents, identified prior art that invalidated those patents, and presented a Rule 11 letter to the plaintiff. After reviewing the results of our investigation, the plaintiff dismissed its claims and F1 Firearms is moving forward with a motion to recover its attorney’s fees.

AXTS, Inc. v. F-1 Firearms, LLC; Cause Number 2021-1069; In the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Huntsman/DS Brown

S. Brown filed suit against Huntsman in a Massachusetts federal court related to expansion joint failures on a major bridge construction project in Springfield, Massachusetts. We filed a motion to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds and prevailed.  Before the motion was granted, we filed a declaratory judgment action in Texas seeking a declaration of non-liability and attorney’s fees under the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act. Then, we used Texas’s expansive and fast discovery process to develop evidence that Huntsman’s products performed as designed and other factors were responsible for the expansion joint failures. We deposed D.S. Brown witnesses and obtained key admissions regarding the cause of the failures. Our procedural maneuvers forced D.S. Brown to fight in Texas state court, two thousand miles from its chosen forum, and our discovery strategy showed that Huntsman was not liable. The case settled on the eve of trial on extremely favorable terms to Huntsman.

Huntsman International LLC v. D.S. Brown Company; Cause Number 19-11-14861; In the County Court at Law Number 2, Montgomery County, Texas

Republican Party of Texas v. Houston First Corporation

We represent a major political party in breach of contract litigation against Houston First Corporation arising out of Houston First’s cancelation of the June 2020 convention due to COVID-19 concerns.  The dispute relates to the interpretation of the force majure clause. Even though the trial court ruled against the Republican Party (before MPJ got involved), we won an unanimous decision in favor of the Republican Party on appeal. The case is now back in the trial court and headed to trial, with the Republican Party able to seek substantial damages.

Republican Party of Texas v. Houston First Corporation; Cause Number 14-20-00744-CV; In the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas

Versata Software, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company

We represent Versata Software in a trade secret and patent infringement case against Ford. The case relates to complex vehicle engineering software that Ford licensed from Versata for fifteen years and then used as a basis to develop its own software internally. The case involves five patents and multiple trade secrets as well as a complex contractual and business history dating back to 1998. Damages are in the nine figures. Our client survived summary judgment motions on almost all claims and the case will go to jury trial later this year.

Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Software, Inc.; Case No. 15-10628MFL-EAS; In the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan

Core Laboratories

MPJ represents Core Laboratories in multiple litigation matters involving products liability claims, patent infringement claims, and personal injury cases. MPJ attorneys have successfully resolved multiple matters for Core Laboratories in the past.

Maynard Johnson v. Hilcorp Ventures, Inc.; Case No. 2020-41863; In the 11th District Court of Harris County, Texas

Core Laboratories L.P. v. Stratum Reservoir, LLC; Civ. Action No. 4 :20-cv-01384; In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Indiana Gas Company, Inc. d/b/a Vectren v. Owen Oil Tools, L.P.; Civ. Case No. 1:21-CV-02229; In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Bristow Group, Inc. v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

MPJ represents Bristow Group, Inc. in litigation over a $29 million helicopter purchase. Bristow Group sued Sikorsky to recover a $11.7 million deposit it paid on the helicopter.  Sikorsky argued it was justified in retaining the deposit because Bristow did not accept delivery of the aircraft. MPJ discovered that Sikorsky sold the helicopter frame to Uzbekistan, profiting at an even greater level than the contract would have allowed.

Bristow Group, Inc., et al v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, et al.; Adv. Proc. No. 19-03691; In the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court