Skip to Main Content
Our Commitment to Diversity

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE

Daniel J. Stephenson

In re Air Crash Disaster at Detroit (Northwest Flight 255), 86 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 1996). Airframe manufacturer found not liable in connection with nation’s third-worst commercial airline disaster. Trial attorney in 18-month jury trial.
In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, MDL No. 2624 (N.D. Cal.). Lead national counsel for a computer laptop manufacturer in an MDL (multi-district litigation) consolidation of 28 cybersecurity class actions.
Coordinating counsel for overseas class actions, including a no-liability conclusion to a cybersecurity class action in Israel in January 2019.
Amway Corp. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14455 (W.D. Mich. 2001), affirmed, 346 F.3d 180 (6th Cir. 2003). Successful defense of tortious interference claims exceeding $1 billion based on internet speech.
Obtained a 100% award, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, on behalf of the seller of a business in a AAA arbitration against the buyers.
Edmundson v. Procter & Gamble Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53221 (S.D. Cal. 2011), aff’d 537 F. App'x 708 (9th Cir. 2013). Dismissal granted in nationwide class action alleging consumer fraud in marketing of razor cartridges. Affirmed by Ninth Circuit.
Counsel for laptop manufacturer in patent infringement action involving five patents. Successful IPR review on three patents, one infringement count dismissed, summary judgment on remaining patent (on appeal).
Medeiros v. Lenovo, 2016 WL 500503 (D. Mass. 2016). Obtained a dismissal of a nationwide class action alleging false advertising of laptops regarding battery life.
Insurance coverage counsel for a real estate developer in construction defect case – obtained a Damron dismissal and assignment.
Lead counsel in a federal civil lawsuit on behalf of a human trafficking victim against her alleged trafficker.
Represented consumer products manufacturer in a purported class action alleging that a mouth rinse caused tooth staining.
Holliday v. Extex, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Hawaii 2006). Partial summary judgment for engine manufacturer in helicopter crash case; important decision under GARA limiting liability for modified parts.
National science counsel for a case involving a drug used in heart surgery to reduce bleeding. Also represented the company pre-litigation, helping prepare presentations at two FDA Advisory Committee (AdComm) hearings on the drug.
National science counsel and trial counsel for pharmaceutical manufacturer in PPA cases.
Represented pharmaceutical manufacturer in birth control pill cases, one of six firms involved in defending company witnesses and taking plaintiff and treater depositions.
Member of expert development team for medical products manufacturer in latex glove cases.
Mannix v. County of Monroe, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 22561 (6th Cir. 2003). Jury verdict for County on all but one count of a whistleblower / wrongful termination suit, reversal and dismissal of remaining count on appeal.
Rainbow Nails, Inc. v. Maybelline Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4939 (E.D. Mich. 2000). Summary judgment for cosmetics manufacturer on trade secrets claim
In re Comshare, Inc. Securities Litigation, 183 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 1999). Affirming dismissal of securities claims against software manufacturer under Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp., 929 F.2d 1147 (6th Cir. 1991). Affirming jury verdict in favor of computer hardware manufacturer defending against contract and tort claims. Member of trial team
Big Horn Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison, 852 F.2d 1259 (10th Cir. 1988). Affirming jury verdict in favor of coal suppliers suing to enforce coal supply contracts. Member of trial teams in a 13-week jury trial and a 4-week jury trial.
Return to top of page

Email Disclaimer

We welcome your email, but please understand that if you are not already a client of K&L Gates LLP, we cannot represent you until we confirm that doing so would not create a conflict of interest and is otherwise consistent with the policies of our firm. Accordingly, please do not include any confidential information until we verify that the firm is in a position to represent you and our engagement is confirmed in a letter. Prior to that time, there is no assurance that information you send us will be maintained as confidential. Thank you for your consideration.

Accept Cancel