Commercial Law
In the modern business environment, commercial disputes are bound to erupt. When that happens, companies hire Simon Passanante. The firm’s lawyers aggressively represent businesses in a variety of disputes including:
Breach of contract
Unfair business practices
Tortious interference with contract;
Other unfair and illegal business practices
According to John Simon, a partner at the law firm of Simon Passanante, “You have one shot trying your client’s case in front of the jury. You either win your case or you lose it. There is no substitute for experience.”
Founded in 2000, Simon Passanante has been described by the National Law Journal as one of the “winningest firms” in the country.
The lawyers at Simon Passanante handle have extensive courtroom experience representing businesses in high-stakes commercial cases for businesses.
Simon Passanante’s work for CHE is just one example of the cases handled by a results-oriented law firm with a stellar litigation track record. Earlier in 2006, Simon Passanante successfully represented a cable provider after a large apartment complex breached an exclusive contract between the two parties for cable service. The firm’s ongoing intellectual property cases involve products ranging from software to consumer products to medical devices to industrial equipment.
Founded by John Simon and Paul Passanante, the St. Louis-based firm has grown to 17 attorneys, with a total staff of 50. John Simon points out that every one of the firm’s lawyers spends time in the courtroom trying cases: “The trial skills of a lawyer are critical to the outcome of cases, whether those cases are tried or settled. An opponent’s perception of your lawyer’s skills as a trial lawyer substantially impacts the settlement value of your case.” That most cases are settled before trial “only heightens the need for experienced trial lawyers.”
The firm attributes its success to its focus on the end game: efficiently getting a favorable result for the client. To do this well, a lawyer must thoroughly understand the business of the client. Tony Simon, a patent lawyer whose clients have included Converse, Sabreliner Corporation, Enterprise Rent-a-Car and United Airlines, elaborates, “If you don’t have a full understanding of how your client’s business works, you’ll never be able to explain your case in a clear way that a judge or jury can understand.”
The firm’s innovations include offering contingent fee arrangements to business clients. According to John Simon, “This puts our interests in line with those of our client and maintains the focus on the outcome of the case.”
What drives the lawyers of Simon Passanante? John Simon explains, “We care about what we’re doing, we’re passionate about it, and we want to be the best.”
Simon Passanante’s Unique Approach to Intellectual Property Law
Hourly-fee arrangements are the standard for commercial litigation cases. The risk of mounting hourly fees, however, can significantly impact the business objectives of small and medium-sized companies. Many small businesses are therefore reluctant to pursue valid commercial claims through litigation, even though many have significant recovery potential.
At Simon Passanante, we evaluate commercial litigation cases at no obligation to the business. If the case is strong, we can handle it on a contingency fee basis. A contingency fee reduces a client’s risk while allowing it to pursue a claim no matter how large the defendant or protracted the litigation. (Clients may be responsible for costs or expenses.)
Contingent fee arrangements in commercial litigation cases (or hybrid fee/contingency arrangements) reduce the financial risk by eliminating hourly attorney fees. Simon Passanante is one of the few law firms to offer a contingent fee option to businesses that wish to litigate damage claims in commercial litigation cases, especially claims against larger businesses that can better absorb litigation expenses.
To hear more from one of our commercial law attorneys, watch the videos on this page. To find out if Simon Passanante can assist your business, contact Anthony G. Simon, 314-241-2929 or e-mail ASimon@spstl-law.com. (The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.)
A Simon Passanante Success Story
In November 2006, Simon Passanante P.C. successfully represented Custom Hardware Engineering and Consulting Inc. (CHE) in a complex commercial, intellectual property and antitrust case.
CHE is an independent business that repairs large data storage systems manufactured by Storage Technology Corporation (“STK”). STK and CHE were the only companies in the market that serviced STK storage systems. Although CHE was a smaller business, it offered excellent service at a cost far below that of STK. As a result, a big demand developed for its services.
On Oct. 29, 2002, CHE was sued by STK (now a subsidiary of Sun Microsystems) for patent infringement. Simon Passanante reviewed the evidence and concluding that CHE and its owner David York had an antitrust case against STK. The law firm filed a counterclaim for CHE against STK alleging that STK tried to force CHE out of the market. STK’s alleged activities included:
Disparaging CHE in letters and other communications;
Placing code in STK customers’ machines which would not allow anyone other than STK to service the machines unless the customers paid large sums of money to STK;
Replacing customers’ existing machines with new machines for the purpose of making it more difficult for CHE to service the machines;
Ending the sale of information necessary for the service of data storage systems despite the fact that the information had regularly been sold prior to CHE’s arrival on the market.
The complex litigation culminated in a five-week trial in Boston. CHE sought more than $140 million in damages. Just before the jury was to begin deliberations, STK settled with York and CHE. STK agreed to pay CHE a confidential amount, agreed CHE and York had the right to work on STK storage systems, allowed CHE and York to use the tools and information needed to work effectively, and promised to never again sue CHE for its work on STK storage machines. (Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case must be judged on its own merits.)
For more about the case of STK v. CHE, click here. See, also, this IPLaw360 article.
