Aldo Badini is Co-Chair of Winston’s Technology Antitrust Group and a first-chair trial lawyer with more than 35 years of experience litigating cutting-edge issues at the evolving intersection of IP, antitrust and technology. Mr. Badini's principal areas of practice include antitrust and unfair competition litigation, patent litigation, complex commercial litigation, arbitration and contract disputes. He has first chair experience in the preparation and trial of complex cases to judges and juries.
Honors and Awards
Aldo is part of the group awarded the “2015 Team of the Year” in Cartel Defense by The Legal 500. He has been listed in Super Lawyers in 2006–2008, 2011–2012, and 2014–2018, and has been acknowledged by The Legal 500 for his representation of clients in antitrust matters.
Aldo is a member of the Intellectual Property, Antitrust, and Litigation sections of the American Bar Association. He also is a member of the New York State Bar Association, The New York County Lawyers’ Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the Federal Bar Association, the District of Columbia Bar Association, the New York Intellectual Property Law Association, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association. Mr. Badini is a Director of the Justice Resource Center and Co-Chair of the National Advisory Board for the NALP Foundation.
Aldo received a J.D. in 1983 from Harvard Law School. He received a B.A., summa cum laude, from Harvard University in 1980.
Mr. Badini has thirty years of experience litigating antitrust cases involving a wide variety of issues, including those affecting intellectual property rights. He has extensive experience litigating Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 cases in numerous industries, including the steel, coffee, pharmaceuticals, health care, and electronics industries. He has successfully defended clients against predatory pricing allegations and has had extensive involvement in Robinson-Patman and state antitrust cases.
Mr. Badini served as trial counsel for a major pharmaceutical manufacturer in a landmark 10-week Sherman Act antitrust jury trial in which the Court granted defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law. In that case (In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation), potential damages in the tens of billions of dollars were sought along with injunctive relief, arising out of claims that various pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers had conspired to deprive retail pharmacies of discounts for brand name prescription drugs.
Mr. Badini has also been involved in numerous software, semiconductor, biotechnology and medical device patent matters. His experience includes various Markman hearings, jury and judge trials, and intellectual property due diligence and licensing negotiations. He has experience with intellectual property issues relating to standard essential patents (SEPs) and standard setting organizations (SSOs), including possible antitrust claims that may arise in that context.
Representative Antitrust Matters
- Nucor antitrust litigations.Lead counsel for Nucor Steel in antitrust litigations, both as plaintiff and defendant, relating to various alleged monopolization and exclusive dealing causes of action in various jurisdictions
- TreeHouse v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, et al. Litigating monopolization, exclusive dealing and predatory product innovation issues in the Southern District of New York, including coordination with class and competitor cases in California
- Volkswagen v. RPX. Counsel for RPX in antitrust case involving IP licensing issues. Case dismissed.
- Samsung v. Panasonic; Oliver v. Panasonic. Represented Panasonic and obtained successful dismissal of antitrust and patent misuse claims in competitor and putative class cases brought in the Northern District of California challenging SD card standard setting and licensing practices. Cases currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.
- In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation. Counsel for Panasonic in this antitrust case currently pending in the Northern District of California.
- Thales v. Panasonic. Obtained summary judgment in favor of Panasonic in this predatory pricing case brought in the Central District of California
- In re Brand Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation. Represented Novartis in 10-week jury trial alleging Sherman 1 conspiracy to deny discounts to retail pharmacy class. JMOL granted to client at the close of plaintiffs’ case.
- Cambridge Silicon Radio v. Bandspeed. Represented Bandspeed in a case alleging Sherman 1 and 2 violations in connection with alleged nondisclosure of patent applications to a standard setting organization. Settled favorably for client.
- Omnicare antitrust litigations. Litigated various antitrust matters for Omnicare (a leading institutional pharmacy provider) including the successful dismissal of various antitrust and 17200 claims brought in California courts
Representative Patent Matters
- Medtronic v. Guidant. Lead trial counsel for Guidant in jury trial in the DMN seeking over $800 million in damages, plus enhanced damages, for alleged infringement of medical device patent. Obtained judgment as a matter of law for client at the close of all of the evidence.
- Johnson & Johnson v. Guidant. Lead counsel in case which included extended evidentiary preliminary injunction hearing seeking to enjoin $1 billion a year product. Successfully defeated preliminary injunction on behalf of client.
- Lead counsel for Guidant in a series of coronary stent and balloon catheter litigations in various jurisdictions, over several years. The matters settled favorably for the client.
- MedImmune v. Genentech. Counsel for MedImmune in this landmark U.S. Supreme Court victory involving Article III "case or controversy" issues in the context of licensing of monoclonal antibody technology.
- MedImmune v. Centocor. Declaratory judgment lawsuit brought on behalf of MedImmune. Settled favorably for client.
- Panavision v. Omnivision. Counsel for Panavision in CDCA patent infringement case involving CMOS imaging technology.
- Applera v. Illumina; Illumina v. Applera. Counsel for Illumina in a series of federal and state court litigations and an arbitration relating to SNP genotyping technology and various joint venture contractual disputes. The matters settled favorably for the client.
- Via v. Intel. Counsel for Intel in a patent infringement litigation relating to semiconductor chip design. The matter settled favorably for the client.
- Rovi v. Lapis Semiconductor. Represent Lapis in an arbitration relating to a semiconductor licensing dispute.
- Memorial Sloan Kettering v. Errant Gene Therapeutics. Represented Errant Gene Therapeutics in this dispute relating to a joint development agreement for a genetic treatment for beta thalassemia. Resolved favorably for client.
- Uniloc v. Take-Two Interactive and 2K Games, Inc. Counsel for Take-Two and 2K Games in EDTX patent infringement case involving software activation technology. Successfully secured dismissal of Take-Two from action before supplier assumed responsibility for defense of remaining defendant.
Article 08/10/21Winston Attorneys Contribute to Sixth Edition of The Intellectual Property and Antitrust Review
Speaking Engagement 07/20/21NYIAC Virtual Talks - SEPs to Arbitration: Can we be FRANDS?
Accolade 07/16/21GAR 100 Recognizes Winston & Strawn as a Leading Arbitration Practice
Media Mention 02/03/21Featured in Bloomberg Law: Winston & Strawn Forms Team to Help Tech Clients with Antitrust
Press Release 02/03/21Winston & Strawn Launches New Technology Antitrust Group
Speaking Engagement 11/17/20Circuit Riding: The 2020 Unilateral Conduct Update
Accolade 02/28/20Winston & Strawn Named Benchmark Litigation’s 2020 Antitrust Firm of the Year
Briefing 08/28/19The Antitrust Implications of Judge Koh’s Recent Decision in FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc.
Accolade 05/30/19Winston & Strawn Recognized in The Legal 500 U.S. 2019
Sponsorship 05/21/19Winston & Strawn and ICC Co-Host The Application of New York Law in Latin American Arbitrations
Newsletter 11/01/18Pro Bono Reporter – Fall 2018
Speaking Engagement 10/24/18Aldo Badini Speaks at NYIAC Talks: Fresh Ideas, Urgent Concerns
Seminar 09/06/18An Innovation Transformation: Navigating the Legal Risks and Business Opportunities of Disruptive Technologies
Accolade 04/16/18GAR 100 Recognizes Winston & Strawn as a Leading Arbitration Practice
Briefing 04/11/18The FTC’s Sharpened Focus on Antitrust Enforcement Against Big Tech, Internet, and Social Media
Briefing 04/10/18U.S. Department of Justice Challenges “No-Poach” Agreements Reaching Foreign Conduct
Accolade 02/08/18Winston & Strawn Named Trial Group of the Year by Law360
Briefing 01/23/18DOJ Antitrust Division Confirms Criminal “No Poach” Cases Expected Soon
Blogs & Podcasts
08/26/21Competition EO: Technology Sector Expectations
07/15/21Time for Tech Companies to Prepare for Increased Antitrust Enforcement and Private Litigation
12/01/20What a Biden Administration Might Mean for Antitrust Law and Enforcement
12/01/20The Times They Are A-Changin’: The Potential Impact of the Biden Administration on Antitrust Law and Enforcement
08/14/20Sharp Elbows and Profit-Maximizing Licensing Ruled Insufficient Evidence of Anticompetitive Conduct in FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc.