Weil won a significant appellate victory for Saks Fifth Avenue in a closely watched nationwide “no hire” class action that could curtail an employee’s ability to assert similar claims against her employer in the Second Circuit, one of the largest job markets in the world. Plaintiffs, former Saks employees, alleged that Saks entered into agreements with other retailers not to hire certain Saks employees, in violation of the Sherman Act. Following briefing, the district court dismissed the case in March 2023. Plaintiffs then appealed, which drew amicus support from the DOJ and 21 state AGs. Overcoming this support, Weil, arguing on behalf of all defendants, convinced the Second Circuit to affirm.

Weil won an important interlocutory appellate decision for Grubhub before the Second Circuit that clarified a bet-the-business question for the company regarding whether its online user interface is clear enough that its user terms of service are binding – including agreements to arbitrate disputes – for every single registered user of the platform. Following oral argument led by Weil, the Second Circuit vindicated Grubhub’s user interface, and held that the plaintiffs had affirmatively agreed to Grubhub’s terms of service.

Weil won certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, a potentially precedent-setting religious liberty dispute, that could yield money damages for incarcerated client Damon Landor, whose dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by prison officers in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Weil is seeking Supreme Court review so that individuals nationwide can obtain damages under the RLUIPA if an individual state officer violates their religious rights.

Weil delivered a major Ninth Circuit victory for Rimini Street in a billion-dollar copyright dispute with Oracle. The precedential opinion established the standard for an infringing “derivative work” under the Copyright Act, and ruled nearly across the board for Rimini in the latest skirmish in its more than a decade-long battle with Oracle over the lucrative software support market. This is the fifth appeal in the dispute, all of which Weil partners have led.

Weil successfully negotiated a zero-payment settlement that led to the final dismissal of NBA star Zion Williamson in a series of multi-hundred million dollar, high-profile disputes with his former marketing agency, Prime Sports Marketing (“PSM”), concerning a marketing agreement Mr. Williamson signed with PSM before entering the NBA. The multi-year cases were brought in Florida state court and North Carolina federal court. Immediately prior to the dismissal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court victory invalidating the contract. This was a significant win for Williamson and for the broader class of college athletes. This is also the first significant appellate precedent interpreting the North Carolina Uniform Athlete Agent Act – a point emphasized by the National Basketball Players Association in an amicus brief regarding the importance of the issue.

Weil initially filed suit in the Middle District of North Carolina, seeking a declaratory judgment that the agreement between Mr. Williamson and PSM was void under North Carolina’s Uniform Athlete Agent Act. In another victory for the client, the court dismissed PSM’s contract-based counterclaims at summary judgment. We won a seminal victory for Williamson before the Fourth Circuit that is the first in the country to interpret the meaning of “student athlete” under the Uniform Athlete Agents Act.

Weil secured a 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court victory on behalf of our client, Kieran Buckley, who has been fighting to recover his losses since he was defrauded nearly 15 years ago, when the sellers of a property he purchased failed to disclose material defects in the house. The question presented in the Supreme Court was whether 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), which bars an individual debtor from discharging a “debt … for money … obtained by … actual fraud,” covers a debtor’s liability for money obtained by the actual fraud of their agent, even if the debtor did not personally perpetrate the fraud but is vicariously liable for it and shared in the proceeds. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Barrett, unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit decision below that such a debt is non-dischargeable, signaling that the Bankruptcy Code cannot be used as a shield for those who profit from fraud.

Weil won a complete, circuit-splitting appellate victory for Paramount Global in a putative nationwide class action alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The decision could invite Supreme Court adjudication on an issue that has been central to scores of class actions filed around the country over the last few years. Plaintiff in this case subscribed to an e-newsletter on 247Sports.com and allegedly viewed video content on that website. He alleged that Paramount disclosed his online video-viewing history to Meta in violation of the VPPA. After winning the dismissal before the federal court, Weil successfully led the appeal, arguing that plaintiff attempted to extend the reach of the VPPA beyond its intended scope because individuals who signed up for e-newsletters do not qualify as “consumers” within the meaning of the statute. Disagreeing with the Second and Seventh Circuits, the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Weil secured extraordinary mandamus relief from the Eighth Circuit for ExxonMobil in a multi-front, multi-billion dollar dispute seeking to hold our client responsible for alleged plastics pollution. Plaintiffs initially filed suit in Kansas federal court, seeking to represent Kansas counties claiming alleged sanitation costs from plastic waste. After a judge was randomly assigned, the same counsel filed a nearly identical suit just three miles away in Missouri. Weil moved to transfer the Missouri case to Kansas under the “first-filed” rule, which prioritizes earlier-filed related cases.

Preferring the second judge, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Kansas suit and amended the Missouri complaint to include the same parties and claims—effectively folding the first case into the second to keep that judge. Weil promptly filed a mandamus petition with the Eighth Circuit, arguing this tactic undermined random judicial assignment and amounted to “judge-shopping”. In a sweeping win, the appellate court granted our mandamus petition and ordered the case transferred back to Kansas.

Weil delivered a significant Federal Circuit victory as lead appellate counsel for Altria Group against R.J. Reynolds in a high-profile competitor patent dispute related to Altria’s patents for e-vapor devices. The opinion affirmed a jury award and judgment of $95 million in damages for past infringement and a court-ordered ongoing royalty at a rate of 5.25% of sales of Reynolds’ Vuse Alto product through the life of Altria’s patents. The court found that the patents were valid and infringed, and that the jury’s damages award and royalty rate was proper, delivering an across-the-board victory for Altria. A Weil litigation team had previously won the $95 million plaintiff jury verdict for Altria in the Middle District of North Carolina, and then defeated R.J. Reynolds’ attempt to secure a new trial or overturn the verdict in January 2023. R.J. Reynolds then appealed to the Federal Circuit, where Weil protected Altria’s victory.

Weil secured a complete appellate victory for Edwards Lifesciences in a patent infringement suit targeting the company’s transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices. Following oral argument led by Weil, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming a judgment of non-infringement on four patents asserted by plaintiff Aortic Innovations LLC. The case reached the Federal Circuit after a Delaware federal court issued a claim construction ruling favorable to Edwards, following which the parties stipulated to a judgment of non-infringement, which Aortic then appealed.

Weil won a major victory for TripAdvisor and its directors in the Delaware Supreme Court, following a rarely granted interlocutory appeal, in a highly anticipated stockholder class action arising from two controlled companies’ decisions to re-domesticate from Delaware to Nevada. The Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Chancery’s denial of a motion to dismiss claims seeking damages in connection with the re-domestication.

In 2023, the boards of directors of TripAdvisor and Liberty TripAdvisor (the alleged controlling stockholder of Tripadvisor) determined that it would be in the best interests of the respective companies and their stockholders to redomesticate from Delaware to Nevada. Plaintiffs sued the directors of both TripAdvisor and its alleged controlling stockholder, Liberty TripAdvisor, alleging that the 2023 decisions to re-domesticate were self-interested on the part of the directors and the controlling stockholders, and sought potentially hundreds of millions in damages. After the defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied by the Court of Chancery, they sought and were granted interlocutory review by the Delaware Supreme Court, which unanimously reversed the denial.

Weil won a decisive victory on behalf of New York City Regional Center, LLC (NYCRC), when the Second Circuit issued an order affirming in its entirety a lower court’s dismissal of all claims in a $50M+ investor “mass action.” The Second Circuit’s ruling upholds a decision by the S.D.N.Y. dismissing with prejudice all of the more than 100 EB-5 investor plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement and breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted against NYCRC. The ruling reaffirmed the primacy of the business judgment rule in breach of fiduciary duty cases.

Weil won a once-in-a-generation interlocutory appeal for Brookfield and certain of its affiliates in a stockholder litigation before the Delaware Supreme Court that reversed Delaware’s oft-criticized 2006 precedent, Gentile v. Rosette – a ruling that will have a seismic impact on Delaware corporate law. The court’s unanimous, 52-page ruling struck down Gentile’s controversial “dual-natured” claims precedent, whereby certain claims may be both direct and derivative. In its opinion, the court unanimously held, in agreement with Weil’s arguments, that: “[W]e can properly say that the practical and analytical difficulties courts have encountered in applying [Gentile] reflect fundamental unworkability and not growing pains[.]”

Weil, working with pro bono with partner organizations, secured an appellate victory on behalf of our client, James Genrich. This marks Weil’s fourth appellate victory on behalf of Mr. Genrich, and part of a nearly decade-long representation. The Colorado Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for writ of certiorari, which, if granted, would have allowed the State to challenge a lower court’s decision granting a new trial to Mr. Genrich. Mr. Genrich has been in prison for three decades following a conviction based on since-debunked “toolmark matching” science, which came after a series of pipe bombings. After an evidentiary hearing, a Colorado trial court agreed that the State’s expert testimony would now be inadmissible and that, with the additional benefit of new science, a jury would likely acquit. Accordingly, Mr. Genrich was granted a new trial, which the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The State then filed its petition for writ of certiorari.