In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Eric Winston, a Quinn Emanuel partner in the Los Angeles office. Eric is one the firm’s insolvency and restructuring partners. He is based in Los Angeles and appears in case around the country. Together, they discuss the Aearo bankruptcy case in Indianapolis, Indiana – a case where Aearo’s (solvent) parent, 3M Company, tried (but failed) to use Aearo’s bankruptcy to enjoin the largest MDL litigation in the federal court – the Combat Arms Earplugs MDL in Pensacola, Florida. This may be the first time in the recent history of “mass tort” bankruptcy cases that tort victims were able to defeat an injunction to protect non-debtor parent companies. The conversation begins with events leading up to the bankruptcy and the MDL, comprising over 250,000 product liability claims relating to defective earplugs sold to the US military. The discussion highlights the work of Quinn Emanuel associate Matt Hosen who found, buried in a large document production in a prior (and successful) antitrust case against 3M, an internal 3M document that became known as “The Flange Report.” John explains that the report by a scientist at 3M revealed that the earplugs that 3M had been selling to the U.S. military for over 15 years were defective. The report led to the filing of a False Claims Act suit against 3M and became important evidence in the resulting lawsuits filed by a quarter million active and former US service members. John and Eric then discuss Quinn Emanuel’s role in the ensuing mass tort litigation against 3M and Aearo, consolidated in an MDL proceeding in Pensacola, Florida. They recount the jury verdicts in “bellwether trials” and the sudden bankruptcy of just Aearo, in Indianapolis, as well as Aearo’s immediate efforts to extend the “automatic stay” protections of a bankruptcy filing to 3M, even though 3M itself was not in bankruptcy. John asks Eric what 3M was trying to accomplish by the bankruptcy filing. Eric explains that 3M’s goal was to use controversial bankruptcy tools, including the automatic stay, claim estimation or channeling injunctions into a bankruptcy plan, and forcing plaintiffs to file proofs of claim. These tools have been used in other major mass tort cases, such as in the LTL/Johnson & Johnson litigation, where a subsidiary holding the mass tort liabilities files for bankruptcy, but the solvent parent does not. In these cases, the debtors have been overwhelmingly successful in protecting the non-debtor parents. John and Eric discuss why this matters. As Eric explains, 3M wanted to channel the resolution of all the tort claims into bankruptcy and, in turn, force plaintiffs to take less than they would usually get in civil court litigation, resulting in 3M keeping more money. Eric and his colleagues were able to defeat this strategy. Together, John and Eric then cover the Aearo bankruptcy case, including the bankruptcy discovery, trial, and important cross-examinations, including the importance of a key funding agreement between 3M and Aearo. The discussion then turns to what happened in the MDL before and after the bankruptcy court denied the injunction Aearo sought for 3M’s benefit. This included the motions Quinn Emanuel filed in the MDL to stop 3M from arguing that it was not 100% directly and independently liable for all earplug litigation. Finally, John and Eric discuss Eric’s experience working more broadly with the plaintiff lawyers in their bankruptcy arena and their different approaches to litigation, as well as the impact the Aearo case may have in future “mass tort” bankruptcies, before concluding their discussion.

John is joined by Patrick D. Curran, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Boston and New York offices. They discuss the emerging issues regarding artificial intelligence currently before the courts, legislatures and government regulators and that, while many critical questions are pending before courts and regulators, clear answers are still few and far between. First, they discuss how despite the billions of dollars being invested in developing large language AI models, patent law often does not protect those investments because patents generally do not cover general ideas, mathematical concepts, or algorithms. They also discuss the question of whether an AI generated invention may be cited as prior art that would invalidate a human-generated invention. Patrick then explains that companies are increasingly relying on trade secret protections to safeguard their AI innovations, even though this approach comes with challenges. Patrick further explains that trade secret protection may extend indefinitely, unlike patents which expire after a defined term, but notes the difficulty inherent in detecting when competitors might be using proprietary models, making trade secrets harder to enforce. They also discuss AI’s role in invention, noting that while AI may create invent things, such as new molecules, if there is no human involvement in the process, the discovery cannot be patented. They then examine the legal challenges regarding the use of copyrighted material in training AI models, including whether using copyrighted material for AI training constitutes fair use, the degree to which companies can limit data scraping through their terms of service, and the role that technical safeguards against scraping might play in future disputes. They also discuss recent defamation claims based upon AI generated content and the difficulties of proving intent when human input to the content is minimal. The discussion then turns to recent regulatory developments, including recent legislation in US cities such as cities like New York City and Portland, Oregon, states including Colorado and California and international efforts like the European AI Act and the “Brusselization” of GDPR requirements. Patrick describes the industry’s divided stance on regulation, with some companies calling for stricter oversight while others fearing that regulation will stifle innovation. Finally, both John and Patrick agree that as courts and regulators tackle these complex issues, the legal landscape surrounding AI will continue to evolve rapidly.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Michael D. Hausfeld. Michael is widely regarded as one of the leading plaintiffs antitrust lawyers in the world. This episode examines how he achieved a $2.67 billion settlement, as well as market-changing injunctive relief for Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) subscribers. The conversation begins with John and Michael discussing the background of the case, noting that BCBS is the single largest national provider of healthcare insurance with over a hundred million subscribers. Together, they discuss how Hausfeld LLP first came to be involved in the case more than 14 years ago, with Michael describing how a number of firms, including firms that compete with Hausfeld LLP, came to him with suspicions of anti-competitive behavior, asking if he could see whether or not there was an antitrust violation. They then discuss how BCBS structured its “Blue Network” so that each individual Blue Cross entity was considered an independent entity, yet none could compete for healthcare insurance in any state outside their designated territory. They explain how these ostensibly separate entities had essentially allocated markets between themselves and agreed not to compete with each other in violation of antitrust laws. John and Michael cover the extensive discovery taken in the case, including the numerous depositions taken and the millions of documents produced. Michael describes the privilege disputes over hundreds of thousands of documents and the mostly favorable rulings the plaintiffs obtained before a Special Master who examined every document in dispute. John and Michael then discuss the battle of experts in the case and how, unlike a traditional cartel case where the experts need only determine a “but, for” price, this case required the experts to actually model the marketplace and identify which areas within a state a competitive entity would have entered first, how that might grow, etc. The experts then modeled or extrapolated those results for all 49 other states. Michael explains the judge’s novel process for resolving expert disputes in which he had two economists educate him off the record on the factors that each side’s economists focused on in making their determinations. John and Michael then explore how the judge’s ruling on a motion to determine the applicable principle of law, later affirmed on appeal, set the stage for settlement negotiations to be productive. Michael explains how the scope of injunctive relief rather than arriving at the $2.67 billion settlement amount was the most difficult issue to negotiate. They examine how the injunctive relief obtained requires BCBS to restructure its Blue Network so that national BCBS accounts can obtain multiple bids at their choice. They also discuss how, because the national account market is the benchmark for the remaining portions of the market, that will affect competition for all insurance markets: national, regional and local. They then discuss the new cases Michael is now working on, including one involving whether or not a branded manufacturer of HIV drugs unlawfully extended the life of its patents so that it could control pricing, another involving whether or not the major rail carriers agreed not to compete on imposing a fuel surcharge, and a mass tort climate change case on behalf of a number of global south countries against major carbon emitters. Finally, John and Michael discuss Michael’s view that big tech, including Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta will be a focus of a great deal of antitrust attention for some time into the future. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi​

In this episode of the series “The Career Path of a Large Firm Associate,” John is joined by Homin Ban, a first-year associate in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles Office. Together, they talk about Homin’s first sixth months at the firm. Homin shares with John his journey from law school to Quinn Emanuel, including Homin’s unique summer associate experience working remotely in South Korea as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. They then discuss Homin’s time as a first-year associate, including navigating Quinn Emanuel’s “Work From Anywhere” policy, Homin’s first interactions with clients and partners, and the different types of cases and opportunities he has had thus far. ​

In the second episode of the series “The Career Path of a Large Firm Associate,” John is joined by Matt Arrow, a mid-level associate at Quinn Emanuel who joined the firm in 2021. They discuss life as a young associate, his progression into a mid-level role, and the support he received along the way. Matt discusses the impact of remote work on young associates and the adaptations he and the firm have made. Matt discusses his work experiences in just over a year at the firm, including his first deposition experiences, an upcoming arbitration, and some of the opportunities provided to him as early as day one at the firm. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi​

In this episode of the series “The Career Path of a Large Law Firm Associate,” John is joined by Jack Baumann, who was elected a partner in the firm in 2022. John and Jack discuss his progression from associate to partner. Jack takes us through his transition from his 9th Circuit clerkship to joining the firm. They discuss Jack’s initial expectations as a new associate and his many firsts, including depositions, hearings, trials and other stand up opportunities and the mentorship he received along the way. Jack offers tips for managing stress and workload.

John is joined by Zina Bash and Ashley Keller, both Partners at Keller Postman, LLC which, with the Texas Attorney General, represented the State of Texas in an enforcement action against Meta Platforms for violations of Texas’s biometric privacy law. They discuss the landmark $1.4 billion settlement they obtained from Meta for capturing and using biometric identifiers like face geometry without consent, the largest settlement ever by a single state. They explain how Texas’s biometric privacy law differs from the better-known Illinois biometric privacy act because in Texas, there is no private right of action; only the state attorney general can bring lawsuits. Ashley explains that the claims against Meta concerned capturing biometric identifiers, such as the face geometry, of millions of Texas residents without informed consent, disclosing this data without permission, and failing to delete it after use. Among other defenses, Meta argued that because Facebook is a free service, it did not collect this information for commercial purposes. The State argued that Meta’s actions were clearly tied to its business model. Meta also argued that it should not be penalized for scanning the faces of non-Facebook users because Meta could not obtain informed consent from non-users. The court rejected this argument, ruling that this was still a violation of the Texas law. They then discuss how the settlement followed a fast-track 18-month litigation process, a stark contrast to a similar Illinois case against Meta, which lasted five and a half years. Zina attributed the speed of this case to the aggressive approach of the Texas attorney general’s office, which had been investigating Meta for over a year before the suit was filed. She explains that a major turning point was the Texas court’s decision requiring Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to sit for deposition. Zina explains that Meta faced potentially ruinous damages of $25,000 per photograph that appeared on Facebook or Instagram. The discussion then turns to broader privacy concerns. Ashley and John note that Americans’ attitudes towards privacy seems to have evolved, particularly regarding the intrusive data collection practices of tech giants like Meta. In the past, people might be willing to trade personal data for free services like social media, but more recently people are increasingly wary of how their information is being used without consent, especially as companies like Meta monetize that data. Finally, they note that most users don’t fully read or understand the terms of consent they agree to in user agreements, raising questions about how genuinely informed their consent truly is.

John is joined by Jon Ballis, the Chairman of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, one of the world’s leading law firms with approximately 3,500 attorneys around the world. Jon describes his path to leadership at the firm, from joining Kirkland in 2005 from another firm as an M&A lawyer without aspirations for management, to his election to the Management Committee and his elevation to Chairman in January 2020. Jon explains Kirkland’s governance, emphasizing the firm’s flat organizational structure and the absence of many formal titles which he believes encourages organic leadership development. He also explains Kirkland’s unique Nominating Committee system, which seeks to avoid entrenchment and favoritism by allowing members to serve on the Nominating Committee only once in their careers. They also discuss Kirkland’s strategic focus, particularly its approach to talent management and strategy. Jon says that the firm’s strategy is client-driven, evolving organically based on where its clients are heading, rather than adhering to a rigid, top-down plan and how this client-focused approach has led to Kirkland expanding its private equity practice to include areas like energy, infrastructure, and private equity credit. Jon then explains Kirkland’s approach to compensation and lateral hiring, dismissing the idea that Kirkland “buys business” through offering high compensation for laterals based on their “book of business.” He says that the firm focuses on hiring talent to meet growing client demand. He says that Kirkland’s litigation business grossed almost $2 billion last year and operates at close to the same margins as its transactional business. Jon then discusses the merit-based compensation system at Kirkland, which is subjective and not formulaic. Every two years, the firm conducts a review and assigns each partner a set number of points that determine that partner’s compensation for the next two years. Jon explains Kirkland has two classes of nonequity or income partners, one class that are on track to either become equity partners or move on and a second class of permanent income partners. Finally, John and Jon discuss the challenges of maintaining leadership in the legal industry, including the importance of continuous improvement, innovation, and a willingness to take risks to maintain excellence.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by John Hueston and Moez Kaba, Co-Founders and Partners at Hueston Hennigan LLP. Chambers has described John Hueston as “one of the top trial attorneys” in the United States and Moez as “a master in the courtroom.” Together they discuss an arbitration in which they obtained both a $175 million plus 5% ongoing royalty (an estimated $50 million annually) award in arbitration – one of the largest U.S. trademark awards ever – and a federal jury trial verdict for more than $271 million (a potential record for a Lanham Act case) for clients Monster Energy and Orange Bang against Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VPX), the maker of Bang energy drinks. The conversation begins with John Hueston explaining the background of the dispute. He discusses how for 40 years, Orange Bang had a widely known trademark for the term “Orange Bang” as a beverage. He then explains that VPX licensed the use of the term “Orange Bang” but only in connection with creatine-based beverages in the nutrition market. The discussion turns to the rise of VPX to become the third largest competitor in the energy drink market, thanks to their product, Bang Energy. The discussion then turns to the issues in play in the arbitration, including how John and Moez had to prove both the licensing agreement’s validity and that the trademark had been infringed. They explain their strategy of making the three-week arbitration about the science creatine and how they used VPX’s own documents and witnesses’ depositions to work in their favor. They also explained how they boxed in VPX’s CEO into questioning the ingredients of his own energy drink. Moez and John discuss how they proved trademark infringement using survey evidence, historical admissions, and strong equitable stories, including how VPX signed the licensing agreement knowing confusion would ensue. They explain why they decided to take a conservative approach to monetary damages rather than asking for more than $1 billion, which expert analysis could have supported. This approach resulted in an award of $175 million plus 5% royalties going forward. John then moves the discussion to the Lanham Act jury trial. Moez begins by noting the nine-month time difference between the arbitration and the federal trial and that Monster had filed its lawsuit in California in 2018 before the arbitration proceedings began. In the lawsuit, Monster alleged that VPX advertised its product as a game-changing beverage, which was “nothing short of a miracle drink that delivers benefits and cures that have evaded scientists for decades.” Monster also alleged that VPX had misappropriated Monster’s trade secrets by hiring Monster employees and telling them to bring Monster’s confidential information over with them and interfered with Monster’s contracts with retailers by removing Monster’s products from shelf space it paid for and putting Bang into that shelf space. John Hueston and Moez then explain their unique approach to mock jury exercises in which they overweight the other side’s arguments to help develop their approach both before starting discovery and to prepare for the trial. They also discuss the strict time limits the Court placed on the trial and how they were able to present their case involving complex health, science, and legal issues. Moez explains how they developed their themes that VPX was lying to consumers about what they put in their beverages, cheating competitors by taking confidential information and stealing shelf space away from Monster Energy in supermarkets. They discuss how instead of calling VPX’s CEO to the stand first, they targeted high-level executives who could confirm VPX’s false statements first and then sandwich the CEO’s examination between experts who admitted that Monster’s scientific claims were correct. Finally, the discussion turns to the two critical points of the trial that gave John & Moez the confidence to believe the jury would rule for them: the jury’s reaction to John Hueston’s cross-examination of VPX’s CEO and Moez’s ability to reduce the scientific issues to a level that was understandable and compelling to a working-class jury. Ultimately, the jury awarded Monster more than $271 million on its Lanham Act claim. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi​

John is joined by three of Quinn Emanuel’s newest partners, K. McKenzie Anderson, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office; Jodie Cheng, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s San Francisco office; and Ryan Rakower, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss the very different paths they took to becoming partners at the firm. Ryan grew up and went to law school in New York City where, after clerking for a judge, he joined Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. His practice centers on civil commercial disputes representing private investment firms and insurance companies and he has spent his entire career at the firm. McKenzie grew up in Oklahoma, the latest in a long line of lawyers in her family, swearing that she would never become a lawyer. She worked in Moscow, Russia, for several years before eventually going to law school and starting her legal career at Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. She became a prosecutor with the U.S. DOJ for several years before returning to Quinn Emanuel where she practices in white collar criminal defense work and investigations as well as regulatory matters while working remotely from her home in Oklahoma. Finally, Jodie grew up in San Francisco in a family of engineers and became intrigued with intellectual property litigation. She spent the first four to five years of her legal career at one of the largest law firms in the world then pivoted to become a solo practitioner for four years before joining Quinn Emanuel where she does intellectual property litigation in the semiconductor and chip design, AI and machine learning, and medical device industries. They also discuss their motivations to be the best at what they do and the importance to them of working in a collaborative environment. Finally, they discuss the inherent anxieties of life as an associate and offer their suggestions to younger lawyers on how to succeed despite those anxieties.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Nasser Alrubayyi. Nasser is a partner at Quinn Emanuel. He represents and defends international and domestic corporations in a wide assortment of litigation and arbitration cases. Together they discuss the modernization of law, the legal profession, legal process, and judiciary in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and how that relates to promoting foreign investment, including in the mining industry, tech, and life sciences. John and Nasser discuss how Saudi Arabia is currently the fastest-growing economy in the G20, which has led to significant investments in the sectors of the future such as biotech, and education logistics, in addition to oil and gas investment. They note that this growth depends upon a robust legal system that investors have started to have confidence in. Nasser explains that the legal system is not based upon either common law nor civil law; rather, it is a hybrid, drawing on traits of both. Saudi Arabia has a written constitution, drawing on Sharia sources denoted from Islam, as well as different laws issued by government bodies relating to particular issues. Nasser then explains Sharia law, more specifically, its two primary sources, the holy Qu’ran and Sunnah, referring to the sayings and actions of the prophet Muhammad PBUH. In addition, there are other sources, such as the consensus of the companions of Sharia scholars. He describes the laws pertaining to procedural matters, such as Saudi companies' law and legislation that discusses substantial issues like personal status laws. Together John and Nasser discuss the procedure behind a significant new law being enacted, walking through the process step-by-step from start to finish, including the role of the Council of Ministers. John then steers the conversation toward understanding the recent developments that have taken place in the Kingdom to attract greater foreign investment. Nasser describes how Saudi Vision 2030 is a key driving force in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s push to make it a more friendly destination for foreign investment. He notes that since the approval of Vision 2030, many laws have been amended, and new laws have been enacted to make the Saudi Arabian market more attractive to foreign investors. John and Nasser discuss the enactment of the new mining and investment law as an example of one such law. The law aims to accelerate foreign investment in the mining sector by adopting international best practices, including reducing administrative discretion, bureaucracy, and obstacles to obtaining required licenses. The law also establishes clear timelines for the Saudi entities to respond to requests from investors, as well as an online system that enables investors to track their license applications and know where in the process they are. Nasser notes that while great strides have been made, more work is needed to promote the Kingdom. John and Nasser discuss the Future Investment Initiative (FII) conference in Saudi Arabia, an excellent example of how the Kingdom seeks to play a crucial role in the global economy. The discussion then turns to understanding the Saudi judiciary and the importance of a fair, just, and practical system. Nasser explains the Saudi court system and how proceedings have been made more effective through the use of digital communications. He notes that the majority of cases are now heard and accessed remotely, online. John and Nasser also discuss the path to becoming a judge in Saudi’s judiciary system and recent investments to provide judges additional training as well as more assistants to help them prepare Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi​

John is joined by the Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore, Lucien Wong, SC. Attorney-General Wong explains that under Singapore’s constitution, his office is an independent organ of the state which does not answer to either the cabinet or the legislature. His office includes four divisions: the criminal division which conducts all prosecutions in Singapore, the civil division which advises government ministries and agencies as well as representing the government in civil court cases and arbitrations, the legislative drafting division which drafts all legislation in Singapore, and the international affairs division which protects Singapore’s interests on the international legal stage. Attorney-General Wong also explains that he is the Chairman of the Legal Service Commission which employs all lawyers working in his office and is independent from the Public Service Commission, which employs all other civil servants in Singapore. They discuss the case where, less than a month after he became Attorney-General, Malaysia brought an action against Singapore in the International Court of Justice to reclaim an island off the coast of Singapore, requiring Attorney-General Wong to become an international lawyer overnight. Finally, they discuss Singapore’s use of caning as a criminal punishment, including how the practice originated in India’s penal code which Singapore inherited upon achieving independence, its value as a deterrent, and that Singapore’s reputation as a clean, efficient, civil society might be attributable in part to the deterrent effects of its criminal punishments.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Mark Lanier, Founder of the Lanier Law Firm. Mark is consistently recognized as one of America’s premier civil trial lawyers. Together John and Mark discuss the $650.6m award Mark recently won on behalf of two Ohio counties in a bellwether trial against CVS, Walgreens & Walmart for their role in the opioid crisis. John and Mark begin by discussing the basis of the claims against these pharmacies. Mark explains that because opioids are controlled substances, pharmacies must ensure that a prescription is valid and proper before filling the prescription. Further, pharmacies must notice and resolve any red flags that arise in connection with a prescription before filling it. Mark provides several examples of potential red flags, including (a) several seemingly healthy people presenting prescriptions for the same dose of the same medicine written by the same doctor, (b) a prescription from a doctor located so far away that the customer had to drive by many other pharmacies that could have filled the prescription, or (c) the customer paying for other prescriptions with insurance, but paying cash for the opioids. John then turns the discussion to how Mark proved at trial that these pharmacies violated their duties on a systemic basis. They discuss the statistical evidence that Mark presented, including the methodology Mark used to sample an appropriate number of prescriptions to see how many raised red flags and how many times the pharmacies resolved those issues before filling the prescriptions. This analysis showed that the pharmacies ignored the vast majority of prescriptions, which raised red flags. John and Mark also discuss policies that stores adopted preventing pharmacists from investigating red flags, including requirements that prescriptions be filled in 15 minutes or less. They then discuss the defenses Walmart, Walgreens & CVS presented, that they each sold only a small percentage of the opioids sold in the two counties, so their actions could have had only a minimal effect on the opioid crisis. Mark recounts how the defendants’ statistical expert illustrated this point to the jury using pie charts and how he was able to turn those charts against the expert in cross-examination. The conversation then moves to the damages phase of the trial, including injunctive relief. Mark explains why he focused his presentation on injunctive relief, particularly the costs of the actions the counties would have to take to control the opioid crisis over the next 15 years, rather than estimating the damages incurred to date. They discuss the remediation plan Mark first presented, the defendants’ attempts to poke holes in it, and the scaled-down plan Mark ultimately presented to the court. John and Mark then discuss what the $650.6m judgment for two small counties in one state would mean when extrapolated to the country as a whole. They explore how these enormous numbers have led the pharmacies to re-evaluate their potential national exposure and the effect this has had on their settlement posture in other cases. They also discuss the current state of opioid litigation in general, including the three buckets of plaintiffs (governmental entities affected by the crisis, opt-outs and hospitals and other healthcare institutions) as well as the three buckets of defendants (manufacturers and importers of opiates, opiate distributors, and pharmacies) and where each group currently stands in terms of litigation and settlement. John then turns the discussion to the arguments the pharmacies will raise on appeal. Mark explains the pharmacies’ arguments that the case is an unwarranted extension of the law of nuisance, their arguments against the joint and several liabilities, as well as their claim that the jury was tainted by one juror’s alleged misconduct. Finally, John and Mark discuss some of Mark’s other remarkable trial wins, including the $118m he won in a case that he had earlier offered to resolve for $10,000. This leads to a discussion of how experienced and thoughtful trial lawyers avoid posturing and candidly negotiate the best possible settlements for their clients. They end by discussing Mark’s recent decision to open an office in the United Kingdom, a decision driven by recent changes to mass tort law in the United Kingdom. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi​

John is joined by one of the most successful trial lawyers in the US, Jon Loevy, co-founder of Loevy & Loevy. Together, they discuss the $228 million jury verdict Jon won in the first trial brought for violations of Illinois’ unique Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). They explain the BIPA statute, focusing on the landmark suit Jon brought against BNSF Railway Co., including the history of the litigation, the trial itself, the course of settlement negotiations, and the implications of the case for the future of privacy litigation.

John is joined by David A. Nelson, a partner in the Chicago office of Quinn Emanuel & co-chair of the firm’s National Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. David is widely recognized as one of the most successful patent trial lawyers in the United States. They discuss how trying patent cases is different than trying other commercial cases. They also discuss how to win patent cases at trial including the importance of developing common sense explanations for technical arguments, developing a consistent narrative from the beginning, and using fact witnesses to bring life to your technical arguments. Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/ Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi​