Weil represents Farmers Insurance and various affiliates in In re Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litigation, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Florida federal court comprising dozens of cases across the country brought by auto repair shops, alleging that Farmers and dozens of other insurers artificially suppress reimbursement rates for auto body repairs, in violation of antitrust, RICO, and other statutes.In September 2015, Weil won the dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the lead case of the MDL, and over the course of the following year, Weil secured the dismissal of 13 related cases in the MDL. Plaintiffs in five of the dismissed cases appealed these decisions to the Eleventh Circuit, which in September 2017 issued a 2-1 panel decision, over a vigorous dissent, reversing the trial court rulings and remanding for further proceedings. After an exceedingly rare grant of an en banc petition prepared by Weil, in March 2019 the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice in an en banc review of the consolidated appeal. In addition, Weil won a significant victory in May 2017 for Farmers Insurance and its affiliates when a Florida federal court granted the dismissal of all claims in a nationwide putative RICO class action, another component of the MDL.

Weil obtained a victory for The Dow Chemical Company before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals when the Court affirmed the dismissal of Greenpeace’s claims of trespass, invasion of privacy, and conversion of confidential information. Greenpeace brought the suit in DC Superior Court, alleging that Dow and other companies engaged in illegal surveillance and stole information about Greenpeace’s investigation of the companies’ conduct and alleged impact on the environment. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision in its entirety, holding that Greenpeace’s invasion of privacy claim was time-barred, and that it lacked sufficient property interest to properly assert the other claims. This was the third victory Weil obtained for Dow in this dispute with Greenpeace. Weil obtained the dismissal of related RICO litigation commenced by Greenpeace in Washington, DC federal court, which held that Greenpeace had failed to state a RICO claim.

Weil achieved a decisive appellate win for Sanofi, its subsidiary Genzyme Corp., and certain executives in one of the most impactful securities cases in recent memory. In March 2016, the Second Circuit affirmed in its entirety the dismissal by the S.D.N.Y. of a securities fraud class action and a related case for securities fraud arising out of statements regarding the results of Phase 3 clinical trials for a multiple sclerosis drug and its prospects for FDA approval. Notably, the opinion is the first by the Second Circuit to address the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent, seminal Omnicare decision, which articulated the standard for securities fraud liability for allegedly misleading statements of opinion. John Neuwirth, co-head of Weil’s Securities Litigation practice, was named “Litigator of the Week” by The Am Law Litigation Daily, which noted that “investors still face a high bar in federal court in New York—home of one of the busiest securities dockets in the country.”

Weil secured a unanimous decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a lower court’s summary judgment ruling for various Marvel entities and their parent The Walt Disney Company (collectively, Marvel) in a widely-followed copyright ownership dispute between Marvel and the heirs of Jack Kirby. Kirby was a noted comic book artist who worked for Marvel for decades, including during the late 1950s and early 1960s, when Marvel created many of its iconic comic book superheroes such as The Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, and The X-Men. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Weil’s clients in 2011. On appeal, the Second Circuit issued a precedential decision unanimously upholding the summary judgment ruling, and rejected all of the Kirby heirs’ arguments concerning copyright ownership, finding that the undisputed evidence established that the works at issue were created for Marvel as works made for hire as a matter of law.

Weil obtained a significant, precedent-setting victory for Marsh before the Second Circuit that provides for the first time a solid framework supporting the right of a company to terminate an employee who fails to cooperate in an internal investigation of alleged wrongdoing. In this action, two former Marsh executives sought to obtain severance benefits and the value of stock options forfeited when they were terminated in the aftermath of a New York state investigation into the practice of “contingent commissions” and alleged bid-rigging. In June 2012, the S.D.N.Y. dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process on the pleadings, and in January 2015 the court granted Marsh’s summary judgment motion, dismissing Plaintiffs’ remaining claims for severance benefits under ERISA and for the value of their forfeited equity awards under state law. Then, in June 2016, following oral argument, the Second Circuit affirmed.

Weil secured a Federal Circuit affirmation of a Patent Office decision on behalf of Illumina in one of the first appeals of an inter partes review decision. In 2012 Columbia University sued Illumina in the D. Del. for infringement of patents that allegedly cover next-generation DNA sequencing technology. Columbia accused Illumina’s entire product line of infringement, including Illumina’s $740,000 high throughput HiSeq sequencers, and requested injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In response, Illumina submitted petitions with the Patent Office to have Columbia’s patents placed under inter partes review. After Illumina prevailed in the Patent Office, Illumina brought on Weil for Columbia’s appeal. Being one of the first appeals of an inter partes review decision, there were substantial open issues as to how the Federal Circuit would review such decisions, including whether patent owners would be given leeway to amend claims to target accused infringers, which Columbia had attempted to do. In addition, the appeal raised new challenges regarding the presentation of a technical Patent Office record to an appellate court panel. After briefing was submitted, during oral argument in April 2015 Weil focused the case down to a single technical issue, and blunted Columbia’s evidence of willful infringement and copying with evidence of independent invention. In July 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Office’s decisions on every point, and ruled that Columbia would not be permitted to amend its claims.

Weil won a high-profile appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court for Schindler Elevator Corp. in Schindler Elevator Corporation, Petitioner v. United States, ex rel. Daniel Kirk, a case interpreting the public-disclosure bar of the False Claims Act. This case had been closely watched by the business community and was of considerable importance to federal contractors doing business with the federal government.

Weil won a major victory for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, when the New York Court of Appeals – the State’s highest court – held that the Port Authority was entitled to immunity from tort liability in connection with the 1993 terrorist attack at the World Trade Center because its security-related decisions reflected the exercise of discretionary, governmental functions. In a 4-3 decision reversing the Appellate Division’s decision, the Court of Appeals found that the alleged failures upon which the plaintiffs’ claims were based centered on the Port Authority’s allocation of police and security resources, which is a government function that qualified the agency for immunity from liability.

Weil represented the European Union, amicus curiae, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, a landmark case determining whether victims of international human rights violations can sue in U.S. courts under the Alien Tort Statute. The Supreme Court ruled that the Alien Tort Claims Act presumptively does not apply extraterritorially.

Weil secured Second Circuit affirmation of a pair of earlier rulings the Firm had won on behalf of DMX Inc. in copyright rate court proceedings against the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and Broadcast Music Inc., both performing rights organizations. The rulings sharply reduced DMX’s fees and established a new fee structure to promote alternatives to blanket licensing. By allowing publishers to negotiate and license music directly from commercial music providers, this ruling sets a precedent that may lead to greater competition.