Paul Maddock

Representative Cases

• Insituform Technologies, Inc. et al v. AMerik Supplies, Inc. et al., Case 1:2008- cv-00333 (N.D. Ga.). While lead counsel representing Insituform, obtained a default judgment against defendant Cosmic Sondermaschinenbau GmbH for repeated violations of Court Orders. Obtained a sanction of $441,000 for attorneys’ fees necessary to cure repeated discovery violations and to oppose Cosmic’s unfounded retaliatory motion for sanctions
• Insituform Technologies, et al v. Cat Contracting, et , 4:1990-cv-01690 (S.D. Tx.). As lead counsel for Insituform in a patent infringement suit, Mr. Maddock tried damages to the court resulting in a judgment of $9.6 million for Insituform. Case subsequently settled favorably for Insituform
• Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients GmbH The Ingredient House, LLC et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-4232 (N.D. Ill.). Represented plaintiff in a patent infringement suit where the patent covered an intermediary by-product in the manufacturing process. The primary patents had expired. Defendant was owned by former Nutrinova executives, and settled with Nutrinova on favorable terms
• Valley Entertainment v. Friesen et al., 1:2008-cv-03470 (N.D. Ill.). Lead counsel representing defendant in a copyright infringement suit for infringement of certain music. Won summary judgment of non-infringement. Attorneys’ fees awarded
• Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company U-Haul International, Inc., 4:2003-cv-01480 (E.D. Mo.). Lead counsel who represented Enterprise in a trademark infringement action that alleged that U-Haul’s “eMove” mark infringed Enterprise’s “e” trademark. Case settled favorably for Enterprise
• Illinois Tool Works et al. v. Thermal Dynamics Corp., 1:2003-cv-00966 (E.D. Wi.). Lead counsel responsible for defending Thermal Dynamics Corp. in a patent infringement suit concerning power supplies for welders. Case settled favorably
• CIMA Labs, et al. v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., 0:2003-cv-02477 (D. Minn.). Represented KV in a patent infringement suit and defeated motion for preliminary injunction. After KV filed requests for reexamination of the patents, CIMA requested that the Court stay the case. The case was settled favorably for KV after KV filed for bankruptcy for reasons unrelated to the litigation
• Prosecuted In re Certain Low Antimony Phosphoric Acid, No. 337-TA-620, as lead counsel on behalf of ICL Performance Products, LP (St. Louis, Missouri) (“ICL”). The complaint alleged the importation and the sale within the United States of certain low antimony phosphoric acid infringed certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,989,509. ICL favorably settled the matter
• The GSI Group, Inc. Sukup Mfg. Co., Case No. 05-3011 (C.D. Il.). Cross-examined lead witness for GSI on behalf of Sukup, and defended against GSI’s allegations of false advertising. Witness for GSI, during cross-examination, admitted that GSI’s own advertising was false under GSI’s theory of the case. Case settled favorably for Sukup shortly after this cross-examination