News & Events

August 18, 2026— A Kellogg Hansen team secured a resounding victory on behalf of firm client Corning Incorporated before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The initial determination of an ITC Administrative Law Judge was made public in a trade secrets case brought by Corning against a Chinese state-owned glass manufacturer and its distributors.  The decision is: Certain Glass Substrates for Liquid Crystal Displays, Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Manufacturing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1433 (ITC) (public version August 17, 2026, EDIS Doc. ID 891874). The subject matter of the case is liquid-crystal display (“LCD”) glass, which is used in TVs, monitors, notebook and laptop computers, and tablets.  Corning is an American glassmaker with a 175-year history of innovation that includes the glass for Edison’s lightbulb, windows for Apollo 11’s moon lander, and fiber optic cables for AI data centers. Corning invented a glassmaking technology called fusion draw that forms millimeter-thin, perfectly flat glass substrates for LCDs.  Designing the technology and bringing it to market took Corning decades and cost more than a billion dollars.  Corning’s glass is the leading product in the worldwide LCD glass substrate market, generating revenue that supports Corning’s continued investments in new discoveries. Corning named the following entities as respondents: Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd., d/b/a Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd.; Hisense USA Corporation; HKC Corporation Ltd.; HKC Overseas Ltd.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; TCL China Star Optoelectronics, Technology Co., Ltd. (“CSOT”); TTE Technology, Inc., d/b/a TCL North America (“TCL”); VIZIO, Inc.; and Xianyang CaiHong Optoelectronics, Technology Co., Ltd. (“CHOT”). According to court records and evidence presented at the hearing, Caihong was a Chinese state-owned enterprise that, in the early 2000s, made outmoded cathode ray tubes.  As cathode ray tubes became obsolete, Caihong sought to produce LCD glass, but it lacked the technology.  Caihong acquired engineering drawings reflecting stolen designs of Corning’s fusion draw technology and created copies of the drawings bearing its own logo.  Within just two years of forming its LCD glass business, Caihong began producing LCD glass using Corning’s stolen designs and operational know-how.  Respondent Caihong Display, which was a part of the Caihong family, became the controlling shareholder of the LCD glass business soon thereafter and operates it to this day. The ALJ held a five-day evidentiary hearing in February 2026.  Several respondents settled prior to the hearing (HKC, VIZIO, and LG).  One respondent (Hisense) settled during the hearing after Corning’s fact witnesses testified. In her now-public initial determination, the ALJ held that Caihong Display and all remaining respondents violated Section 337 for their roles in misappropriating and using Corning’s trade secrets. The ALJ has recommended that the Commission exclude the remaining respondents’ importation into the United States of products made with Caihong LCD glass for a period of years.  In addition, she recommended that the Commission order TV-maker TCL to cease and desist from selling products it previously had imported into the U.S.  On the current schedule, subject to Commission review, the exclusion orders and cease desist order will go into effect in January 2027. During the evidentiary hearing, Caihong Display claimed that it independently developed LCD glassmaking technology without using Corning’s stolen trade secrets.  The ALJ rejected that claim.  She found a “lack of persuasive evidence of independent development” for both Caihong’s initial manufacturing equipment and “later generation Caihong” equipment.  Instead of independent development, she found “the evidence of record shows that Caihong’s [initial generation equipment] and subsequent generation products benefited from misappropriation of certain of Corning’s Design Trade Secrets.” Caihong Display’s General Manager and CFO, both senior executives, testified by deposition and by video from China, respectively.  The ALJ found the evidence “casts doubt on the credibility” of Caihong’s General Manager, who testified that Caihong never received Corning’s proprietary information or technology secrets.  The ALJ found the testimony of Caihong Display’s CFO was “not sufficiently credible” to support Caihong Display’s equitable defenses. The ALJ found that all the additional respondents (CHOT, CSOT, and TCL) were on notice of Caihong Display’s misappropriation but wrongfully continued to import or sell for importation into the U.S. products using Caihong LCD glass.  Yesterday’s public decision puts all prospective users on notice that Caihong\'s LCD glass has been initially found to have been made using misappropriated Corning trade secrets.  If companies sell or market goods that use Caihong’s LCD glass with knowledge that Caihong made it with Corning’s trade secrets, they could face elevated legal, compliance, and supply-chain risk for use of misappropriated trade secrets. Corning’s counsel John Thorne said, “We are proud of the results that we have obtained on behalf of Corning.  I’m particularly proud that, in addition to four of our partners, five associates presented and cross-examined witnesses during the evidentiary hearing.  Additional associates also took and defended depositions and argued critical motions.  This ruling is a testament to our firm’s founding ethos that talented young attorneys can be trusted to produce outstanding results for our clients.”  The ITC’s NEXT Advocates Program encourages parties to provide opportunities for less-experienced attorneys to argue substantive motions and to examine witnesses at the evidentiary hearing. The trial team included: John Thorne, Gregory G. Rapawy, Joseph S. Hall, Thomas W. Traxler, Jacob E. Hartman, Bethan R. Jones, Hannah D.C. DePalo, Matthew N. Drecun, Eric J. Maier, D. Chanslor Gallenstein, Matthew J. Wilkins, Nataliia Gillespie, Jahvonta A. Mason, and Sean P. Quirk...

August 4, 2026— Anyone who follows the Supreme Court knows the routine: refreshing the Court’s website, waiting for orders, opinions, or docket updates. Kellogg Hansen partner Scott H. Angstreich turned that frustration into SCOTUSWatch, an iOS and Android app that delivers real-time alerts and eliminates the guesswork. What started as a simple script has evolved into a powerful platform used by hundreds of lawyers, journalists, and Court watchers. Built using AI-assisted coding tools, SCOTUSWatch sends push notifications to users’ devices, lets users track up to 30 different dockets, and provides quick (optional) AI-generated summaries of Court opinions and orders. The app at its core is an example of how practical legal technology can emerge from a real-world need and how innovation can help lawyers, students, journalists, and Court watchers stay informed more efficiently. Read more about SCOTUSWatch: I Stopped Refreshing the Supreme Court\'s Website — Lawyers Who Code | PacerPro Read the whole Lawyers Who Code series here. Download SCOTUSWatch on iOS or Android. Scott H. Angstreich litigates regulatory matters before courts and agencies on behalf of communications companies and their trade associations, energy companies, and tech companies. His practice encompasses regulatory, litigation, and appellate matters, with a particular focus on administrative law and telecommunications, and he advises clients on compliance with complex regulatory schemes and contracts...

July 29, 2026— Kellogg Hansen associate Jimmy A. Ruck served as a panelist on BARBRI’s continuing legal education program, “Personal Injury From Failure to Warn: Drug Label Litigation Under State Law and Impossibility Preemption.” Alongside partners from firms around the country, Jimmy discussed how courts address the drug manufacturer’s impossibility preemption defense in personal injury lawsuits in the wake of recent decisions. Drawing on his experience successfully litigating preemption cases, Jimmy advised plaintiffs on developing fact and discovery strategies to survive summary judgment and how to navigate complex legal issues at the intersection of administrative law and science. The CLE focused on ongoing challenges in litigating state‑law failure‑to‑warn claims when drug manufacturers argue that FDA action makes compliance with state law labeling duties impossible. In particular, the panel discussed the impact of the Third Circuit’s decision in In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation, an appeal Kellogg Hansen won. Jimmy represents both plaintiffs and defendants in trial and appellate courts.  At the trial level, he handles every phase of litigation, from the complaint stage to examining witnesses at trial.  At the appellate level, he has briefed in multiple courts of appeals and in the United States Supreme Court, and successfully argued a precedent-setting victory in a federal court of appeals.  Jimmy has particular experience with complex commercial disputes, securities, and antitrust litigation, representing clients in the financial, telecommunications, and technology industries. The full CLE program is available here: Personal Injury From Failure to Warn: Drug Label Litigation Under State Law and Impossibility Preemption - Product Info - Barbri - Barbri Portal  ..

July 24, 2026— Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC is pleased to announce that the firm has been named the winner of The National Law Journal\'s 2026 Elite Trial Lawyers award in Antitrust for its work in Innovative Health LLC v. Biosense Webster Inc., No. 8:19-cv-01984 (C.D. Cal.). Kellogg Hansen, led by partners Derek T. Ho and Andrew E. Goldsmith, served as lead trial counsel in a major antitrust victory for Innovative Health, securing a $147.4 million jury verdict after a federal jury found that Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Biosense Webster unlawfully tied clinical support services to the purchase of its heart catheters and monopolized the relevant catheter markets through anticompetitive conduct. The National Law Journal described the decision as a “landmark” antitrust verdict. The National Law Journal named partner Derek T. Ho a finalist for Plaintiff Attorney of the Year, recognizing his leadership and results in complex, high-stakes trial matters on behalf of plaintiffs. Derek is one of only a small group of litigators nationwide shortlisted for this individual honor. In addition to its win in Antitrust, Kellogg Hansen is recognized as a finalist in three other categories: Consumer Protection, Products Liability, and Technology. These categories highlight the firm’s depth of experience handling cutting-edge class actions and impact litigation, often involving novel theories and sophisticated economic and technological issues. The National Law Journal’s Elite Trial Lawyers Awards celebrate the exceptional accomplishments of U.S.-based law firms that demonstrate unparalleled dedication and innovation in advocating for plaintiffs. This recognition honors firms and attorneys who have delivered groundbreaking legal strategies, achieved significant results, and showcased an unwavering commitment to advancing justice for their clients. Kellogg Hansen’s inclusion across multiple categories underscores the firm’s track record, where it regularly tries matters to verdict and secures significant recoveries for clients. See the full shortlist and winners of the 2026 Elite Trial Lawyers Awards here...

July 1, 2026— Kellogg Hansen congratulates partner Minsuk Han on his appointment as Chair of the D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Review Committee. The Committee regularly reviews the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct for possible revisions and amendments and consists of 15 active members of the D.C. Bar.  All proposed amendments are reviewed by the Board of Governors for approval and submission to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.  Mr. Han has served on the Committee since 2021, most recently as Vice Chair.  He is appointed to serve as Chair of the Committee by the D.C. Bar Board of Governors for a one-year term, beginning July 1, 2026. Mr. Han represents plaintiffs and defendants in trial and appellate courts and arbitration.  He has particular experience with complex commercial disputes, securities investigations and litigation, antitrust and intellectual property law, and legal ethics matters.  He teaches commercial arbitration as professorial lecturer in law at the George Washington University Law School...

June 18, 2026 — Six partners at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. have been ranked in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA for their work in antitrust, appellate litigation, general commercial litigation, and telecommunications law. The rankings reflect the firm’s continued strength in handling complex, high-stakes litigation at both the trial and appellate levels. Antitrust: Mainly Plaintiff – District of Columbia Aaron M. Panner has been ranked in the Antitrust: Mainly Plaintiffs category. Kellogg Hansen is among the nation’s premier law firms in the areas of antitrust litigation and enforcement. The firm’s cases have reshaped the substantive and procedural law of antitrust over the last two decades. Appellate Law – Nationwide Two Kellogg Hansen partners — David C. Frederick and Michael K. Kellogg — were ranked in the Chambers USA nationwide category for Appellate Law. The firm’s appellate practice has a longstanding reputation for representing clients in significant matters before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals. General Commercial Litigation: The Elite – District of Columbia In the District of Columbia category for General Commercial Litigation, Chambers USA recognized Mark C. Hansen and Derek T. Ho. These attorneys handle a wide range of complex civil litigation matters, including class actions, antitrust disputes, and securities cases, often in cases involving substantial financial or regulatory exposure. Telecom, Broadcast & Satellite Law – District of Columbia Michael K. Kellogg and Scott H. Angstreich were ranked in the District of Columbia category for Telecom, Broadcast & Satellite Law. The firm has long represented clients in the telecommunications sector in regulatory, appellate, and trial court litigation, including disputes involving federal and state communications laws. Commercial Litigation (Boutique) Law Firm of the Year Chambers recognized Kellogg Hansen as a finalist for Commercial Litigation (Boutique) Law Firm of the Year at the Chambers USA Awards on Thursday, June 11, 2026. Chambers USA is an independent legal directory that ranks the leading lawyers and law firms in the United States based on in-depth research and client feedback. View the firm’s Chambers USA profile here...

April 24, 2026—Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby of the D.C. Court of Appeals and Chief Judge Milton C. Lee, Jr., of the D.C. Superior Court have announced the 15th annual Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll, recognizing D.C. Bar members and others authorized to perform pro bono work in the District who completed 50 or more hours of service in the past year. The D.C. Courts have recognized attorneys through the Honor Roll since 2011. In 2025, a record 6,052 attorneys met the 50-hour threshold, with 57% reporting 100 or more hours and qualifying for the High Honor Roll—marking a significant increase from prior years. Honorees represent a broad cross-section of the legal community, spanning more than 180 law firms, solo practices, government agencies, corporations, nonprofits, associations, and academic institutions. Fifteen Kellogg Hansen attorneys earned recognition on the 2025 Honor Roll for providing at least 50 hours of pro bono legal services to those unable to afford counsel. Scott K. Attaway Justin B. Berg * Geoffrey J.H. Block * Mary Charlotte Carroll Abigail E. DeHart David C. Frederick * Jordan R.G. González Anthony R. Guttman Geoffrey M. Klineberg * Spencer R. Lockwood Jahvonta A. Mason Sean P. Quirk * Matthew D. Reade * Derek C. Reinbold * Matthew J. Wilkins *denotes High Honor Roll..

March 12, 2026 — This Women’s History Month, Kellogg Hansen partner Alejandra Ávila spoke with The Appellate Project about her career and shared her advice for how to build a sustainable appellate practice. In “A Day in the Life of a Partner,” Alejandra reflects on her work at the firm.  “[T]here is no ‘typical’ day or week,” she explained.  “I manage all kinds of cases. One day I’m writing a Supreme Court brief about bankruptcy, the next day I’m defending a deposition in an antitrust case, and the next day I’m working with an expert on a question of foreign law. I chose this job because it keeps me on my toes, every day is different, and I am always learning something new.” Alejandra also emphasized the importance of mentoring and strengthening advocacy skills.  As a partner, Alejandra tries to emulate the balanced managerial approach that helped her grow and improve, entrusting associates and staff with substantive responsibilities and empowering them with the tools they need to handle their matters. “I strongly believe that cultivating young talent is an investment that pays off because it allows upper management to delegate efficiently, increases morale across the team, and improves work product overall. Most important of all: it’s good practice to be kind to your colleagues.” Kellogg Hansen is a preeminent trial and appellate litigation firm founded on the idea that talent, creativity, and hard work achieve the best results for clients. Formed in the spring of 1993 by law school classmates Michael Kellogg, Peter Huber, and Mark Hansen, our firm has grown over the past 31 years–with each year proving that our founding principle holds true. Today, Kellogg Hansen has more than 100 attorneys, and boasts an extensive record of success for our clients. Our highly credentialed and motivated lawyers offer businesses, individuals, and governments sound counsel and innovative solutions to complex disputes and high-stakes matters. We have substantial experience trying cases to verdict at trial, arguing matters before the United States Supreme Court and other appellate courts, and representing businesses and individuals in parallel proceedings before state and federal courts, agencies, and arbitration panels. We represent both plaintiffs and defendants, providing our clients with a balanced view of both sides of litigation. We are most proud of the exceptional results we achieve for our clients–we have won multiple verdicts in excess of $1 billion, and successfully defended clients against similarly large damages claims. Our focus on experience, talent, and hard work ensures that our clients receive the highest quality of representation and extraordinary service. Read “A Day in the Life of a Partner: Alejandra Ávila on Lived Experience, Mentorship, and Building Sustainable Appellate Careers” on The Appellate Project’s website...

February 3, 2026 — Partner Josh Branson and the Kellogg Hansen team have been spotlighted in Law.com’s Litigator of the Week coverage for their work in long-running Antiterrorism Act litigation arising from terrorist attacks in Iraq. On January 23, 2026, the D.C. Circuit delivered a crucial victory for Gold Star Families and wounded veterans in an important Antiterrorism Act case concerning 2008-era Iraq.  Kellogg Hansen, along with co-counsel Sparacino PLLC, represents the families of nearly 400 Americans who were killed or wounded in Iraq; clients sued five major pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies for allegedly making corrupt payments to the terrorist group responsible for those attacks.  After the district court dismissed the claims, the D.C. Circuit reversed in full.  The next steps should be discovery, summary judgment, and trial. The American Lawyer previously recognized Josh as Litigator of the Week for this case in 2022, when the D.C. Circuit first reversed the dismissal of these claims. Kellogg Hansen has been leading the case since 2017.  During the course of the eight-years-and-counting litigation, more than 20 plaintiffs have died.  The Kellogg Hansen team includes David Frederick, Andrew Goldsmith, and Derek Reinbold. The case and this most recent appellate victory have also drawn attention from leading legal media, including coverage as Ruling of the Week in Original Jurisdiction\'s Judicial Notice and recognition in Law360’s Legal Lions feature. Kellogg Hansen is honored to continue representing the families of Americans injured or killed by terrorist attacks. Atchley v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., No. 20-7077 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 2026)..

January 16, 2026 — The recent ruling by Judge James Boasberg, which found that the FTC failed to demonstrate that Meta illegally monopolized the personal social networking market, marks a landmark moment in modern antitrust litigation. In a recent interview with Global Competition Review, Kellogg Hansen partner Aaron Panner shared his reflections on the five-year journey as outside counsel for Meta. The victory, he notes, was not just a win for the company, but a testament to the evolving nature of Section 2 cases. A Team Effort Under Pressure: Panner emphasized that the \"gratifying\" result was the product of a massive collaborative effort. Led by Mark Hansen, the legal team worked hand-in-hand with Meta’s in-house counsel and executives. This synergy allowed the team to develop the complex facts necessary to navigate a trial of this magnitude. The Weight of Data: Why Meta Won: What resonated most with the court? According to Panner, it came down to \"quantitative evidence of substitution.\" Natural Experiments: Data from events like the TikTok outage provided a real-world look at how users shift their time between apps. Empirical Analysis: Controlled experiments (such as those by Professor List) offered the court concrete proof of a competitive market. Competitive Reality: Documents and testimony showed that Meta’s investment decisions were driven by the need to respond to intense pressure from rivals. The Human Element of the Trial: Beyond the data, Panner highlighted the importance of executive testimony. Working with Meta’s top executives allowed the legal team to translate a \"very complicated\" business into an educational experience for the court. And cross-examination of competitors revealed the \"intense competition\" Meta faces—facts that were ultimately reflected in the competitors\' own internal documents. The Future of Section 2 Cases: The implications of this ruling extend far beyond Meta. Panner predicts that Judge Boasberg’s focus on market definition and empirical evidence will influence how antitrust lawyers develop and try cases for years to come. In an era of \"big tech\" scrutiny, this case reinforces that at the end of the day, hard data and a clear narrative of competitive response remain the strongest defense. Read the full article here (paywall) Read more about Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc. Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB here..