Sale of Beauty Company to Major Retailer
The firm advised a luxury beauty product and spa services retailer in its acquisition by a major department store. The department store has reported that the $210 million acquisition will enable it to expand its selection of beauty products while increasing its nationwide presence. Under the agreement, the firm’s client, which currently operates over 60 specialty stores across the country as well as online, will continue to operate its stand-alone specialty business under its current brand. Leveraging the major retailer’s technology, supply chain, and operations resources, the luxury beauty brand will be allowed to increase and strengthen its nationwide presence. A press release on the transaction is available here, and press on the transaction is available here.
Successful Consumer Product Advertising Challenge
In 2013, the firm represented a producer of body wash in a successful challenge filed with the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division (NAD). On behalf of our client, we challenged (1) claims by our opponent that competing body washes were harsh; (2) a false and denigrating comparative product demonstration purportedly showing that other body washes were much harsher than our client’s body wash; and (3) our opponent’s claim that our client’s body wash provided the “proven best care.” NAD ruled in favor of our client on all of the claims. Our opponent appealed NAD’s decision to the National Advertising Review Board (NARB). The appeal was decided in favor of our client, with our client prevailing on all contested issues. NARB recommended that our opponent revise its television advertising, website, and product label for the body wash in question. The New York Times published an article discussing the challenge, which can be found here.
Jury Win for Medical Device Manufacturer in Patent Trial
In June 2012, a Florida federal jury ruled in favor of our client, a Fortune 50 medical device manufacturer, finding that two lines of its contact lenses did not infringe a patent covering a type of soft contact lens that can be worn for extended periods of time. A U.S. District Judge entered final judgment following the jury’s verdict for our client. As an alternative basis for the judgment, the Judge found that our client was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the plaintiff's failure to prove infringement after a cross-examination in which our opponent’s expert admitted that he had not performed the scientific tests described in his expert report. Based on these admissions, we moved to strike the expert’s testimony. The Court took that motion under submission and allowed the jury to return a verdict.
After the verdict – and as a further basis for its judgment of noninfringement – the District Court granted our motion to strike the testimony of our opponent’s expert and concluded that, with its expert’s testimony stricken, our opponent lacked evidence needed to prove infringement. Our opponent then appealed, and on appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the exclusion of the expert’s testimony and affirmed the judgment of noninfringement.