Commercial Litigation
High-stakes disputes and multi-district litigation in the federal and state courts, tried rather than settled.
Counsellors at Law · Founded Boston 1894
The argument matters more than the verdict.
The Front Page · Volume CXXXI · Three Jurisdictions
A transatlantic litigation firm that regards the courtroom not as a last resort, but as its natural environment — and the written brief as the highest form of advocacy.
Established MDCCCXCIVPersuasion is not decoration. It is the rigorous arrangement of fact and law until a conclusion becomes not merely arguable, but unavoidable.
The Firm's First Principle, as recorded in 1894
No. II — Practice
Six disciplines, examined closely.
Antitrust & Competition
Section 2 monopolization defence, merger review and cartel investigations across two continents.
Intellectual Property
Patent and trade-secret litigation, including appellate work before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Crisis Management & Investigations
Privileged internal inquiries and the disciplined handling of consequence when reputation is the asset at risk.
Appellate Practice
Brief-writing and oral argument from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States.
International Arbitration
Investor-state and commercial arbitration under ICSID, ICC and LCIA rules, frequently against sovereign respondents.
No. III — Counsel
The partners, in their own hand.
Augustus Sterling
Chairman · Appellate Practice
Junichiro Kato
Senior Partner · Antitrust
Hélène Moreau
Managing Partner · Arbitration
Eleanor Whitfield
Partner · Commercial Litigation
Daniel Abara
Partner · Intellectual Property
Camille Laurent
Partner · Crisis Management
No. IV — The Record
A scholarly index of selected matters.
Successful defence of a patent-venue challenge before the Supreme Court
Halloran Semiconductor v. Meridian Devices, 602 U.S. 114 (2024).
Argued and won, 7–2, establishing the controlling standard for venue in multi-defendant patent actions.
Complete defence verdict in a $3.1 billion antitrust class action
In re Atlantic Freight Antitrust Litig., No. 21-cv-8842 (S.D.N.Y.).
Defended an ocean-carrier consortium against Section 1 conspiracy claims; jury returned a defence verdict after a nine-week trial.
Representation of a sovereign respondent in a $5.4 billion treaty claim
Northshore Resources v. Republic of Valdane, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/22.
Secured dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, with the tribunal awarding the state its full costs of defence.
Reversal of a $740 million infringement judgment on appeal
Ceredyne Inc. v. Northgate Optics, 998 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Obtained reversal and remand on claim construction, eliminating the entirety of the underlying damages award.
Confidential resolution of a cross-border corruption investigation
In re Grand Jury Investigation (D. Mass., sealed).
Conducted a privileged internal inquiry resulting in a declination by the Department of Justice with no charges filed.
$1.2 billion award for a claimant in an energy-supply arbitration
Confidential LCIA Arbitration No. 184211.
Acted for the claimant in a contractual dispute concerning long-term liquefied-gas delivery obligations.
The Firm in Figures
Counted, not embellished.
0
Years
In continuous practice since 1894.
0
Jurisdictions
Courts and tribunals on three continents.
0+
Trials
Matters carried to verdict, not merely filed.
0
Supreme Court Arguments
Heard before the highest court in the land.
No. V — Commentary
Essays from the partnership.
No. VI — Contact
Three offices. One letterhead.
Boston
Head OfficeBoston, Massachusetts 02108
United States
Tel. +1 617 482 1894
Fax. +1 617 482 1895
Fax. +1 617 482 1895
New York
New York, New York 10022
United States
Tel. +1 212 705 1894
Fax. +1 212 705 1895
Fax. +1 212 705 1895
London
London EC2N 4BQ
United Kingdom
Tel. +44 20 7600 1894
Fax. +44 20 7600 1895
Fax. +44 20 7600 1895
The brief is the argument; the hearing is merely its echo.
By Augustus SterlingOral advocacy is overrated by those who have not written enough of it. The case is most often won, or lost, on the page — long before counsel rises to address the bench.
Continue reading →On the quiet return of the monopolization case.
By Junichiro KatoFor a generation, Section 2 lay largely dormant. The enforcers have rediscovered it — and defendants who treat it as a relic do so at considerable peril.
Continue reading →Why sovereign respondents should fear jurisdiction most.
By Hélène MoreauThe merits of an investment claim are frequently the least of a state's concerns. The decisive battles are fought, and most often resolved, at the threshold.
Continue reading →