Professionals

Aldo A. Badini

Partner

Co-Chair, Technology Antitrust Group

Visión General
Experiencias
Credenciales
Información y noticias

Aldo is co-chair of the Technology Antitrust Group and a first-chair trial lawyer with 40 years of experience litigating cutting-edge issues at the evolving intersection of IP, antitrust, and technology. He represents clients in the high-tech, pharmaceutical, metals/mining, and food industries. Admitted in California, New York, and D.C., Aldo has spent significant time practicing in Northern California. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, teaching a class that focuses on trying cases at the antitrust–IP nexus.

Aldo Badini es socio litigante del bufete en la sede de Nueva York. Sus principales áreas de especialización son los litigios de derechos de patente, litigios comerciales complejos, de la ley antimonopolio, arbitraje y conflictos contractuales. Tiene experiencia en la preparación y el enjuiciamiento de casos complejos, incluidos los juicios por jurados.

Intellectual Property Litigation

El Sr. Badini ha trabajado en numerosos casos relacionados con patentes de semiconductores, biotecnología y dispositivos médicos, incluso como abogado litigante principal. Ha participado en varias audiencias previas a juicios para la definición de los términos de la demanda por violación de derechos de patente denominadas Markman, juicios con y sin jurados y en causas de diligencia debida en materia de propiedad intelectual y negociaciones para el otorgamiento de licencias. Su experiencia en juicio incluye la defensa exitosa de un importante fabricante de dispositivos médicos en un juicio por jurados en una causa por violación de derechos de patente tramitada ante el Juzgado Federal de Primera Instancia de Mineápolis en la cual la actora solicitaba una medida cautelar y daños y perjuicios por más de 800 USD millones.

Antitrust and Trade Regulation

El Sr. Badini ha tenido una participación activa en causas relacionadas con la ley antimonopolio, incluidas aquellas en las que se afectan derechos de propiedad intelectual. Tiene una vasta experiencia en el litigio de causas de los artículos 1 y 2 de la Ley Antimonopolio Sherman en varias industrias, incluida la farmacéutica, de atención médica y electrónica. Ha presentado una defensa exitosa frente a acusaciones de fijación de precios desleales y también representó como abogado litigante a una importante empresa farmacéutica en un emblemático juicio por jurados en una causa por prácticas monopólicas basada en la Ley Sherman que duró 10 semanas y en el cual el tribunal hizo lugar a la petición del demandado de que se dicte sentencia por tratarse de una cuestión de puro derecho. En esa causa (“Demanda por prácticas monopólicas contra medicamentos de marca bajo receta”), se reclamaban decenas de miles de millones de dólares y una medida cautelar, ya que se alegaba que había una conspiración entre varias empresas farmacéuticas y vendedores mayoristas para privar de descuentos en la compra de medicamentos de marca bajo receta a las farmacias minoristas. También tuvo una gran participación en causas antimonopolio estatales y basadas en la Ley Robinson-Patman.

Arbitration

En materia de arbitraje, tiene experiencia en apelaciones sobre la arbitrabilidad de conflictos ante varias Cámaras Federales de Apelaciones y en arbitrajes ante el Instituto de Resolución de Conflictos CPR y el Centro Internacional para el Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones (CIADI). Su experiencia con el CIADI incluye la representación de entidades financieras y de estados soberanos en cuestiones relacionadas con leyes y normativas de inversión internacional. Entre otros casos emblemáticos de arbitraje nacional e internacional se incluyen un conflicto entre un cliente soberano y un consorcio internacional de ingeniería relacionado con defectos de diseño de una terminal procesadora de carbón, arbitrajes de conflictos de propiedad intelectual y contractuales ante la AAA y arbitrajes sobre construcción.

General Commercial Litigation

Entre los casos emblemáticos se incluyen: la actuación como abogado litigante principal en un juicio por jurados en una causa de responsabilidad por un producto con la defensa exitosa de su fabricante, la defensa de un banco internacional en un caso de discriminación de género con resultado favorable, la actuación como abogado principal en una causa entablada contra un garante de préstamos estudiantiles (se obtuvo una sentencia sumaria en favor de nuestro cliente), la representación de un banco francés como parte actora en una demanda por fraude, la representación de una empresa consultora y de investigación de mercado en una demanda por negligencia e incumplimiento contractual que le inició un fabricante de productos que alegaba la incorrecta prueba de los productos, y el litigio de conflictos relativos a la cobertura
de seguros.

El Sr. Badini obtuvo el título de Doctor en Derecho en 1983 de la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard. Obtuvo el título de Bachiller en Artes, con mención honorífica summa cum laude, de la Universidad de Harvard en 1980.

Cuestiones clave

Select Antitrust Experience

Defending a large multinational technology company in a case alleging a group boycott and involving issues relating to join patent licensing platforms.
Continental v. Avanci – Secured dismissal of antitrust claims, affirmed on appeal, relating to a patent licensing platform, SEPs, and FRAND issues.
Nucor / Skyline Litigations – Served as lead counsel for Nucor Steel, both as plaintiff and defendant, in antitrust litigations relating to alleged monopolization and exclusive dealing causes of action; obtained favorable jury verdicts in two federal jury trials on behalf of Skyline alleging unfair business practices and false advertising.
TreeHouse v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, et al. – Leading prosecution of massive MDL matter involving claims of monopolization, exclusive dealing, and predatory product innovation issues in the Southern District of New York.
Volkswagen v. RPX – Obtained dismissal for RPX in an antitrust case involving IP licensing issues.
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.
Thales v. Panasonic – Obtained summary judgment in favor of Panasonic in a predatory pricing case brought in the Central District of California.
In re Brand Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation – Represented Novartis in a 10-week jury trial alleging Sherman Act Section 1 conspiracy to deny discounts to retail pharmacy class. Judgment as matter of law was granted to Novartis at the close of plaintiffs’ case.

Select Patent Litigation Experience

Pharmaceutical Patent Dispute – Served as lead ICC arbitration counsel for a major pharmaceutical company involved in a patent licensing dispute. Obtained full award for the client, including attorneys’ fees.
Medtronic v. Guidant – Served as lead trial counsel for Guidant in a jury trial in the District of Minnesota seeking more than US$800M in damages, plus enhanced damages, for alleged infringement of a medical device patent. Obtained judgment as a matter of law for Guidant at the close of all of the evidence.
Johnson & Johnson v. Guidant – Served as lead counsel in a case that sought to enjoin Guidant’s blockbuster US$1B-a-year product. Successfully defeated preliminary injunction on behalf of Guidant, leading to a favorable settlement.
Guidant Patent Litigation – Served as lead counsel for Guidant in a series of coronary stent and balloon catheter patent litigations in various jurisdictions over several years that settled favorably for Guidant.
MedImmune v. Genentech – Served as counsel for MedImmune in the 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 – Favorably settled a declaratory judgment lawsuit brought on behalf of MedImmune.
Panavision v. Omnivision – Served as counsel for Panavision in a patent infringement case in the Central District of California involving complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) imaging technology.
Applera v. Illumina; Illumina v. Applera – Served as counsel for Illumina in a series of federal and state court litigations and an arbitration relating to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping technology and various joint venture contractual disputes. The matters settled favorably for Illumina.
Via v. Intel – Served as counsel for Intel in a patent infringement litigation relating to semiconductor chip design. The matter settled favorably for Intel.
Rovi v. Lapis Semiconductor – Represented Lapis in an arbitration relating to a semiconductor licensing dispute.
Memorial Sloan Kettering v. Errant Gene Therapeutics – Favorably resolved for Errant Gene Therapeutics a dispute relating to a joint development agreement for a genetic treatment for beta thalassemia.
Uniloc v. Take-Two Interactive and 2K Games, Inc. – Served as counsel for Take-Two and 2K Games in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas involving software activation technology. Successfully secured dismissal of Take-Two from the action before the supplier assumed responsibility for defense of remaining defendant.

Recent Experience

Secured High-Profile Fifth Circuit Dismissal for Avanci of Closely Watched Technology-Antitrust Case

Capacidades

Antitrust/Competition

Technology Antitrust

Patent Litigation

Litigation/Trials

Commercial Litigation & Disputes

International Arbitration

Intellectual Property

Public Companies

Technology, Media & Telecommunications

Medical Devices

Health Care

Cuestiones clave

Select Antitrust Experience

Defending a large multinational technology company in a case alleging a group boycott and involving issues relating to join patent licensing platforms.
Continental v. Avanci – Secured dismissal of antitrust claims, affirmed on appeal, relating to a patent licensing platform, SEPs, and FRAND issues.
Nucor / Skyline Litigations – Served as lead counsel for Nucor Steel, both as plaintiff and defendant, in antitrust litigations relating to alleged monopolization and exclusive dealing causes of action; obtained favorable jury verdicts in two federal jury trials on behalf of Skyline alleging unfair business practices and false advertising.
TreeHouse v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, et al. – Leading prosecution of massive MDL matter involving claims of monopolization, exclusive dealing, and predatory product innovation issues in the Southern District of New York.
Volkswagen v. RPX – Obtained dismissal for RPX in an antitrust case involving IP licensing issues.
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.
Thales v. Panasonic – Obtained summary judgment in favor of Panasonic in a predatory pricing case brought in the Central District of California.
In re Brand Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation – Represented Novartis in a 10-week jury trial alleging Sherman Act Section 1 conspiracy to deny discounts to retail pharmacy class. Judgment as matter of law was granted to Novartis at the close of plaintiffs’ case.

Select Patent Litigation Experience

Pharmaceutical Patent Dispute – Served as lead ICC arbitration counsel for a major pharmaceutical company involved in a patent licensing dispute. Obtained full award for the client, including attorneys’ fees.
Medtronic v. Guidant – Served as lead trial counsel for Guidant in a jury trial in the District of Minnesota seeking more than US$800M in damages, plus enhanced damages, for alleged infringement of a medical device patent. Obtained judgment as a matter of law for Guidant at the close of all of the evidence.
Johnson & Johnson v. Guidant – Served as lead counsel in a case that sought to enjoin Guidant’s blockbuster US$1B-a-year product. Successfully defeated preliminary injunction on behalf of Guidant, leading to a favorable settlement.
Guidant Patent Litigation – Served as lead counsel for Guidant in a series of coronary stent and balloon catheter patent litigations in various jurisdictions over several years that settled favorably for Guidant.
MedImmune v. Genentech – Served as counsel for MedImmune in the 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 – Favorably settled a declaratory judgment lawsuit brought on behalf of MedImmune.
Panavision v. Omnivision – Served as counsel for Panavision in a patent infringement case in the Central District of California involving complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) imaging technology.
Applera v. Illumina; Illumina v. Applera – Served as counsel for Illumina in a series of federal and state court litigations and an arbitration relating to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping technology and various joint venture contractual disputes. The matters settled favorably for Illumina.
Via v. Intel – Served as counsel for Intel in a patent infringement litigation relating to semiconductor chip design. The matter settled favorably for Intel.
Rovi v. Lapis Semiconductor – Represented Lapis in an arbitration relating to a semiconductor licensing dispute.
Memorial Sloan Kettering v. Errant Gene Therapeutics – Favorably resolved for Errant Gene Therapeutics a dispute relating to a joint development agreement for a genetic treatment for beta thalassemia.
Uniloc v. Take-Two Interactive and 2K Games, Inc. – Served as counsel for Take-Two and 2K Games in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas involving software activation technology. Successfully secured dismissal of Take-Two from the action before the supplier assumed responsibility for defense of remaining defendant.