Steven Mitby represents plaintiffs and defendants in high stakes business litigation.  Steven has developed special focus in patent infringement and technology-related litigation.  He has been trial counsel in three patent trials, one of which involved damages claims in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  Last year, Steven was instrumental in winning the second-largest patent infringement verdict in the United States – a $392 million award in favor of his client against SAP Americas. (Read about this patent case here.)

In March 2014, Steven won an $11.4 million jury verdict for Function One Consulting in a Houston business disparagement case.  This award is one of the largest of its kind in Texas during the past decade.

Steven also has been called in at the last-minute by other lawyers to try cases.  In December 2010, for example, he was hired less than one month before trial to defend a company in a multimillion dollar shareholder dispute.  With Steven as lead counsel, the company not only won on every single issue at trial, but was awarded $750,000 in attorney’s fees.

Steven has significant appellate experience.  Texas Lawyer recently named Steven “Appellate Lawyer of the Week” for his Fifth Circuit victory in a first-impression ERISA case against Continental Airlines, which garnered national and international press coverage.  (Read about this appellate case here and hear Steven’s oral argument here.)  Steven has also authored numerous successful appellate briefs in Texas state courts and in the Federal Circuit.

In keeping with AZA’s longstanding tradition of representing individual clients in sensitive legal matters, Steven also represents corporate executives and public officials in high profile cases.  In 2011, for example, Steven successfully represented the CEO of the Houston Port Authority in criminal, county attorney, and internal investigations of the Port that received extensive press coverage in Houston.  In the midst of a political and media firestorm, Steven vindicated his client’s reputation by obtaining a rare letter of exoneration from the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, which was widely publicized in the Houston Chronicle as well as Houston radio and television stations. (Read about this case here.)  Steven has achieved many similarly successful results for individual clients on a confidential basis.

Steven’s broad patent and technology litigation experience includes cases involving medical devices, genetic diagnostics, prescription drugs, computer software, computer hardware, GPS systems, highway safety equipment, video, and telecommunications technologies.   Steven also focuses on statutory litigation involving novel legal issues, including ERISA and the federal securities laws.  In his career, Steven has frequently prevailed against some of the largest law firms and companies in the country.

Steven earned spots on the 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Texas Rising Stars lists, which honor the best and brightest Texas lawyers under age 40 and those in practice fewer than 10 years. He was selected based on nominations made by attorneys from across the state who were previously honored in the annual Texas Super Lawyers list.

Steven graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College and cum laude from Harvard Law School.

REPRESENTATIVE MATTERS

Below are some of the representative matters that Steven has worked on during the past five years:

  • AMSF v. Halliburton (represented Halliburton in securities class action related to financial reporting of asbestos liabilities and losses on fixed price contracts).
  • Brown v. Continental Airlines, Inc.( (Represented several Continental pilots in a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals victory in an ERISA employee privacy case that saved my clients millions of dollars in pensions)
  • Coleman Holdings v. Morgan Stanley (represented Morgan Stanley in appeal of $1.58 billion judgment).
  • ConocoPhillips v. G. B. Boots Smith (represented ConocoPhillips in dispute with pipeline construction contractor).
  • Enron Corp. Savings Plan v. Hewitt Associates (represented benefits plan in litigation concerning misallocation of settlement funds from Enron-related class action).
  • Ford Motor Company v. Navistar (represented Ford in contract litigation against main diesel engine supplier for Ford pickup trucks).
  • Gammino v. Southwestern Bell (represented Southwestern Bell in patent litigation and appeal involving international call-blocking technology).
  • Hercules v. OneBeacon Insurance Company (represented London market entities in insurance coverage dispute involving hundreds of millions of dollars in asbestos liabilities).
  • Internal Investigation (represented audit committee of Fortune 500 company in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation involving Middle Eastern and Central Asian operations).
  • Kothmann Enterprises v. Trinity Industries (represented Kothmann Enterprises in patent litigation involving roadside safety technology).
  • Kovar, et. al. v. Platinum Energy Resources Inc. (represented shareholder group against claims it owed a substantial debt stemming from the merger of two oil and gas companies).
  • Legacy Academy v. LLC Concepts (represented Legacy Academy in trademark litigation involving daycare centers in Houston and Dallas areas).
  • Sky Technologies v. IBM (represented Sky Technologies in patent litigation involving software patents).
  • SuperSpeed v. Oracle (represented SuperSpeed in patent litigation involving computer hardware technology).
  • Texas Instruments Employment Matters (represented Texas Instruments in ERISA and civil rights cases).
  • Texas Vioxx Litigation (represented Merck in cases involving novel products liability legal issues).
  • TIP Systems v. AT&T (represented AT&T companies in patent litigation involving inmate telephones).
  • Two-Way Media v. AT&T (represented AT&T in patent litigation involving U-Verse system).
  • Versata Software Inc., et al. v. SAP America Inc., et al (represented Versata in jury trial obtaining patent infringement verdict based largely on a lost profits theory).

SELECT PUBLICATIONS

“Navigating Hypothetical Negotiations,” Managing Intellectual Property, October 2008

“The New Presumption of Adequate Warnings in Texas Pharmaceutical Litigation,” Texas Bar Journal, July 2006

*Internet mail is not fully secure or private. Therefore, please do not transmit confidential information via Internet mail. Transmission of information is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not assume that your communications sent using Internet mail are privileged or confidential. Please do not send Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. any confidential information via the Internet without previously consulting one of our attorneys.

**Nothing on this web page is intended to represent that Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. currently represents any particular clients mentioned because matters and client relationships naturally terminate from time to time.