Paul Collier

Representative matters in which Paul is, and has been, actively involved include:

• ESCO Group LLC v. Deere & Co., C.A. No. 20-1679 (D. Del.): Represents ESCO as trial counsel in patent infringement matter related to excavation technology
• Thompson v. Polaris, 27-CV-17-12608 (Hennepin County, MN), and companioned cases: Represents Polaris as trial counsel in multiple product liability actions related to safety defect allegations for certain off-road vehicles
• Helling et al. v. Polaris, Case No. RIC 1804451 (Riverside County, CA): Repesented Polaris as lead counsel in product liability action involving a vehicle fire)
• Dennis Speerly, et al.  v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:19-cv-11044 (E.D. Mich.): Represents GM in putative class action alleging transmission defects in certain GM vehicles
• In re Polaris Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 364 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minn. 2019) (“Polaris Mktg. I”), and In re Polaris Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 2020 WL 919259 (D. Minn. Feb. 26, 2020) (“Polaris Mktg. II”), aff’d, 9 F.4th 793 (8th Cir. 2021): Represents Polaris in a putative multi-state class action alleging product liability claims for alleged thermal heat and fire hazards in certain Polaris vehicles. The District Court granted Polaris’s motion to dismiss many of the plaintiffs for lack of Article III standing given that the alleged product defects had not been alleged to have manifested in their vehicles. On appeal, the 8th Circuit ruled in favor of Polaris, affirming the District Court’s decision
• Guzman v. Polaris Industries, Inc., 2021 WL 2021454 (C.D. Cal. 2021), reversed, 49 F.4th 1308 (9th Cir. 2022), petition for rehearing denied, Nov. 9, 2022: Represents Polaris in putative California class action involving certain Polaris vehicles
• Johannessohn v. Polaris Industries, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 3d 931 (D. Minn. 2020), aff’d, 9 F.4th 981 (8th Cir. 2021): Represented Polaris in putative multi-state class action arising out of a recall of certain All-Terrain Vehicles; plaintiffs’ motion for class certification denied in the district court; 8th Circuit affirmed class certification denial, ruling in favor of client Polaris
• In re Polaris Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 364 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minn. 2019) (“Polaris Mktg. I”), and In re Polaris Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 2020 WL 919259 (D. Minn. Feb. 26, 2020) (“Polaris Mktg. II”), aff’d, 9 F.4th 793 (8th Cir. 2021): Represents Polaris in another putative multi-state class action alleging product liability claims for alleged thermal heat and fire hazards in certain Polaris vehicles. The District Court granted Polaris’s motion to dismiss many of the plaintiffs for lack of Article III standing given that the alleged product defects had not been alleged to have manifested in their vehicles. On appeal, the 8th Circuit ruled in favor of Polaris, affirming the District Court’s decision
• In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation (MDL 2543): Represented General Motors in multidistrict federal and state civil litigation relating to allegations of safety defects with various GM vehicles, involving claims by more than 7,000 personal injury and wrongful death claimants and the economic loss claims of over 15 million vehicle owners.  Paul was a lead for preparing and presenting the technical defense in the cases, and was a courtroom member of several of the personal injury trials, with each resulting in a favorable jury verdict)
• Strautins v. Trustwave (N.D. Ill.); Morgan v. Trustwave (S. Car. Cir. Ct.): Lead counsel for Trustwave in defense of claims emanating from high profile South Carolina Department of

Revenue data security breach; resolved after successful dismissal of claims.

• In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico April 20, 2010 (MDL 2179): Trial counsel for BP in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation. In the civil litigation trials, Paul was a courtroom member of the trial team that defended BP from claims by the U.S. Government, certain Gulf States, and various BP contractors.
• Kaminski v. BP (M.D. Fla.): Lead counsel for BP in breach of contract and intellectual property theft suit for alleged use of his idea to contain and stop the Deepwater Horizon spill; dismissed after successful summary judgment ruling shortly before trial.  One of numerous intellectual property disputes with similar claims against BP, all of which have been successfully resolved to date.
• DataTern v. BP, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Lead counsel for BP in patent infringement matter involving object/relational mapping tools
• Arbitron v. Ipsos, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Patent case involving media monitoring devices
• In re: BP Lubricants USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill.): Counsel for BP in successful mandamus petition to Federal Circuit resulting in dismissal of Simonian false marking suit for failing to meet pleading standards and setting oft cited precedent that Rule 9(b) requires false marking claims must be plead with sufficient particularity and that conclusory allegations that a defendant should have known the patent expired are insufficient.
• In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips with Minimized Chip Package Size and Products Containing Same (USITC): Trial counsel for Motorola in patent infringement investigation involving semiconductor chip packaging technology; settled shortly after favorable trial ruling.
• In the Matter of Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same (USITC): Lead counsel for Motorola in patent infringement investigation involving light emitting diode technology; settled shortly before trial.
• Motorola, Inc. v. Digital Technology Licensing, LLC (S.D.N.Y) and Digital Technology Licensing, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (D.N.J.): Counsel for Motorola and Verizon Wireless in patent infringement litigation involving digital cellular technology; settled shortly before trial.
• Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Gaming Entertainment Inc. (D. Nev.): Counsel for Shuffle Master in patent infringement matter involving specialty table games; successfully defending against patent infringement claim and prevailing on patent infringement counterclaim on summary judgment.
• International Game Technology v. Aristocrat Technologies Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CV-S-01-1498 (D. Nev.): patent case involving various features related to gaming machines.
• Illumina, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc. (D. Del.): Trial counsel for Illumina in a six-patent and unfair competition case involving control over the DNA microarray technology market; settled after trial.
• In re United Air Lines, Inc. (Bankr. N.D. Ill.): Lead counsel for United in its chapter 11 proceeding with respect to all disputes involving intellectual property.
• Stratos, Inc. v. Picolight, Inc. et al. (D. Del.): Trial counsel for Honeywell in a patent infringement case involving optoelectronic technology; settled during trial.
• GTFM, Inc. v. The William Carter Co. (S.D.N.Y.): Counsel for The William Carter Co. in successful trademark litigation involving use of mark with certain clothing; settled after favorable summary judgment ruling.
• The William Carter Co. v. H.W. Carter & Sons (Trademark Trial & Appeal Board): Counsel for The William Carter Co. in a series of successful trademark oppositions involving the Carter's trademark.
• Wiand v. Minnesota, Mining a& Manufacturing (E.D. Mich.): Counsel for 3M in patent case involving abrasive brushes.
• Fort James, Inc. v. Solo Cup Co. (E.D. Wis.): Trial counsel for Fort James (Dixie) in a patent infringement case involving consumer product technology; settled after trial.