Complex Business Litigation
I. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Arnold I. Kalman’s practice has also involved his representation of companies in the consumer electronics products, telephone equipment, liner board and corrugated box, apparel, industrial fastener and specialty steel industries, in connection with complex and protracted antitrust and antidumping litigation. See, e.g., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986); In Re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 213, 319 (3d Cir. 1983), 513 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D. Pa. 1981), 505 F.Supp. 1125, 1190, 1313 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
An antitrust action involving the monopolization of the telephone equipment market (repertory dialer technology) which was brought on behalf of DASA Corporation by Arnold I. Kalman in June, 1983, against AT&T, Western Electric Company and Bell Telephone Laboratories, inc. (Civil Action No. 83-2596; U.S.D.C., E.D. Pa.) concluded with a $25 million settlement in July, 1984.
Arnold I. Kalman has prosecuted antitrust claims arising out of concerted boycotts, exclusive dealing and supply arrangements, and practices of monopolization and attempted monopolization in the United States industrial fastener industry. His efforts resulted in the jury awarding his client, Applied Bolting Technology Products, Inc., in excess of $1.3 million in compensatory damages. See J & M Turner, Inc. v. Applied Bolting Technology Products, Inc., 1998-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,059 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff’d., 1999-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,458 (3d Cir. 1998).
II. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION AND COUNSELING
Arnold I. Kalman has represented and counseled companies in the apparel manufacturing and retail industries, including Jordache, Guess, The Gitano Group, Sunshine Blues and Today’s Man, in an assortment of business, trade, intellectual property, brand name product diversion matters and disputes. He has prosecuted and numerous cases involving copyright, trademark and patent infringement, false advertising, misappropriation of trade secrets and parallel and gray market product diversion. See, e.g., Masquerade Novelty, Inc. v. Unique Industries, Inc., 912 F.2d 663 (3d Cir. 1990); Premier Dental Products Company v. Darby Dental Supply Company, 794 F.2d 850 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 950 (1986); J & M Turner, Inc. v. Applied Bolting Technology Products, Inc., 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1737 (E.D. Pa.),aff’d., 96 F.3d 1433 (3d Cir. 1996), subsequent proceedings, 1997-2 CCH Trade Cases ¶71,857 (E.D. Pa. 1997), 1998-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,059 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff’d., 1999-1 CCH Trade Cases¶72,458 (3d Cir. 1998); Levy v. K.O.A.O., 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1724 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
Arnold I. Kalman’s success, arising out of a two week long preliminary injunction trial in which he defeated an attempt by his client’s competitor to prevent his client from using a form of advertising essential to the continuation of its business, was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. See J & M Turner, Inc. v. Applied Bolting Technology Products, Inc., supra. This case was later tried to a jury, and after a 4-week long trial, Arnold I. Kalman again defeated an attempt by his client’s competitor to find it to have falsely advertised. Indeed, Arnold I. Kalman succeeded in not only convincing the jury that the competitor falsely advertised and disparaged his client’s product, but also succeeded in obtaining from the jury an award in excess of $1.3 million in compensatory damages for his client. See J & M Turner, Inc. v. Applied Bolting Technology Products, Inc., 1998-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,059 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff’d., 1999-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,458 (3d Cir. 1998).
Arnold I. Kalman also litigates opposition and cancellation proceedings before the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. See, e.g., Metro Traffic Control, Inc. v. Shadow Network, Inc. and CitiTraffic Corp., Cancellation No. 19,291 (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 1995); Manpower International, Inc. v. Rosenbluth International, Inc., Opposition No. 93,850 (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 1995). He as well prosecuted and supervised the registration in the United States and throughout the World of trademarks of clients involved in various professional, commercial and industrial fields, including agriculture, apparel, chemical, children’s party supplies, computer software, dental material and appliances, food/beverage, furniture, health care, industrial and environmental equipment, municipal authorities, multi-media communications and marketing, pesticide, pharmaceutical, publishing, restaurants and travel/transportation.
Arnold I. Kalman also counsels clients on insurance coverage defense and indemnification issues arising out of intellectual property disputes with their insurers and on their behalf litigates such coverage disputes. See, e.g., Applied Bolting Technology Products, Inc. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 942 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D. Pa. 1996), aff’d., 118 F.3d 1574 (3d Cir. 1997).
III. UNFAIR COMPETITION AND TRADE SECRET LITIGATION AND COUNSELING
Arnold I. Kalman counsels both employers and employees with regard to post-employment non-competition, trade secret non-disclosure and customer non-solicitation agreements, and represents employers and employees in disputes involving the enforcement of such agreements and the utilization of trade secrets and other employer confidential proprietary information.
Arnold I. Kalman has defeated an attempt by an employer to prevent its former employees from using an invention alleged to infringe on the former employer’s registered United States patent in a new venture technology company, and to stop the former employees from continuing to use in the new venture their business skills and production know-how which they acquired in their former employment. The litigation raised as well issues involving false advertising, fraud in the procurement of a patent, monopolization and attempted monopolization in the industrial fastener industry. In subsequent litigation between the two companies, Arnold I. Kalman defeated an attempt to prevent the new venture technology company from advertising that its product met certain industry standards. See J & M Turner, Inc. v. Applied Bolting Technology, Inc., 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1737 (E.D. Pa.), aff’d., 96 F.3d 1433 (3d Cir. 1996).
He successfully prosecuted for the new venture technology company claims for false advertising, unfair competition, commercial disparagement, tortious interference with contractual and prospective business relations and restraint of trade and monopolization. Subsequent proceedings in this litigation are reported at 1997-2 CCH Trade Cases ¶71,857 (E.D. Pa. 1997), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1907, 1835, 5945 (E.D. Pa. 1997). The insurance coverage aspect of the case is reported at 942 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D. Pa. 1996). A 4-week long jury trial of his client’s claims concluded with the jury returning a verdict in his client’s favor, awarding it approximately $1.3 million in compensatory damages. See 1998-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,059 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff’d., 1999-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,458 (3d Cir. 1998).
IV. SECURITIES AND CONTRACT LITIGATION AND PARTICIPATION IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FORUMS
Arnold I. Kalman has represented members of the national securities industry, including national and regional stock brokerage firms, individual stock brokers, and securities customers in litigation in the federal courts, in disputes before securities industry arbitration panels and in proceedings brought by self-regulatory organizations the result of investigations which they instituted against member firms and stock brokers of such firms.
Arnold I. Kalman obtained a directed verdict and dismissal of a $25 million claim arising from an alleged breach of an exclusive distribution arrangement brought in federal district court against a New England and Mid-Atlantic food brokerage organization, the Ken J. Pezrow Corporation and its subsidiary companies. Later on behalf of this client, Arnold I. Kalman prosecuted a claim for malicious prosecution and wrongful use of civil proceedings against the law firm and its client that brought the initial lawsuit obtaining the recovery of all the legal fees and costs his client spent opposing the initial lawsuit.