FacultyFaculty/Author Profile

Jason L. Peltz

Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP

Chicago, IL, USA


Jason L. Peltz is a partner in the law firm of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP in Chicago. He graduated with high distinction from the University of Michigan and with honors from the University of Chicago Law School. 

Mr. Peltz has a national litigation practice, regularly arguing cases before state and federal courts, arbitrators and mediators across the country. He has extensive experience in a wide variety of complex commercial litigation, including matters involving patent infringement, product liability, breach of contract, antitrust, fraud and securities litigation, breach of fiduciary duty and other business torts, deceptive and unfair trade practices, insurance coverage, ERISA, employment discrimination, and RICO. He has been admitted to practice in state and federal courts across the country.

 One of his most recent representations was of United Technologies and its Pratt & Whitney division in an alleged multi-billion dollar patent case brought by Rolls-Royce in the Eastern District of Virginia. The technology at issue relates to the jet engines (particularly the fan blades) used on the world's largest airplane, the Airbus A380. Rolls-Royce sought almost $4 billion in damages and an injunction preventing further sales of the accused engines, which are sold by a joint venture between United Technologies and General Electric. The Court granted summary judgment in United Technologies' favor finding that United Technologies' engine did not infringe the Rolls-Royce patent. This ruling was the culmination of a string of successes in which United Technologies also won summary judgment of no willful infringement (by which Rolls-Royce was seeking treble damages up to over $11 billion) and the Court struck Rolls-Royce's damages theory.  In the ruling precluding Rolls-Royce's damages theory, the Court found that Rolls-Royce's multi-billion dollar "price erosion and lost profits damages is based on misstatements of the law, a lack of sound evidence, and unsupported economic assumptions, and its paid up royalty theory is similarly flawed. [Rolls-Royce's expert's] report reads more like a lawyer's brief advocating for the highest conceivable damages award rather than an expert trying to assist the trier of fact reach a reasonable damages figure. Because of this extensive overreaching, the entire report is undermined." 

 He also recently represented DIRECTV in a patent infringement suit filed in the Central District of California. The accused technology involved the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system that answers customer calls.  Plaintiff Phoenix Solutions claimed over $40 million in damages.  After a Markman hearing and discovery, DIRECTV moved for summary judgment on the ground that it outsourced its IVR to a third-party vendor and therefore could not be liable for direct infringement. The district court agreed, holding that DIRECTV "is not liable for an infringing 'use' of the asserted claims because it does not exercise the requisite direction or control over the way that [the vendors] configure and operate the Accused Technology." Phoenix appealed.  Two days after oral argument, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a per curiam decision affirming summary judgment for DIRECTV.  

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.