Jordan M. Heinz currently practices in both the intellectual property and general litigation departments. Within the intellectual property department, Jordan focuses on Lanham Act litigation (trademark, false advertising and unfair competition) and trade secret litigation across a broad range of industries. Within the general litigation department, Jordan focuses on complex commercial litigation matters, including employment and consumer fraud litigation. Jordan also helps coordinate the Firm’s pro bono program and currently serves as a Chicago Pro Bono Coordinator.
- Counsel for technology startup company in two lawsuits alleging the client falsely advertised and violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Won early summary judgment in one suit and a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in the other suit after defeating class certification.
- Counsel for Mammoth Mountain Ski Area in lawsuit alleging violation of the TCPA; matter is pending.
- Counsel for General Motors in lawsuit allegation violation of the TCPA. Secured favorable settlement for client prior to discovery commencing.
- Counsel for Alight, Inc., formerly Aon Hewitt, in trademark infringement lawsuit involving house marks.
- Counsel for Syngenta AG in multi-district litigation alleging false advertising and other claims related to Syngenta’s commercialization of a genetically-modified corn seed.
- Counsel for Discover Financial Services in trademark infringement lawsuit involving graphic design element brought by ING Bank. Negotiated favorable settlement for client at close of fact discovery.
- Trial counsel in successful false advertising suit on behalf of Equal no-calorie sweetener alleging that Splenda no-calorie sweetener misrepresented its artificial product as natural and misled consumers.
- Trial counsel for DIRECTV in false advertising lawsuit related to high-definition picture quality.
- Lead counsel for transgender individuals in a class action challenging President Trump’s transgender military ban (Karnoski v. Trump et al). Obtained a preliminary injunction against the ban and successfully fought back the government’s appeal opposing an emergency stay of the injunction.