Gregory J. Commins Jr.

Partner

Washington, D.C.
T +1.202.861.1536
F +1.202.861.1783

"The team of Bob Abrams, Greg Baker, Greg Commins, Gil Keteltas and Terry Sullivan have been representing Caterpillar in complex litigation for more than two decades and have done a remarkable job..."

— James M. Rooney, Deputy General Counsel and head of litigation, Caterpillar Inc.

Overview

Greg Commins is an established trial lawyer who focuses his practice on matters involving antitrust class action litigation, intellectual property disputes and complex commercial litigation. He has experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in multiweek trials and on appeal throughout the country, as well as providing counsel on a variety of complicated commercial issues.

Greg is a contributor to BakerHostetler's Antitrust Advocate blog, providing informative commentary on the latest developments in the antitrust litigation sector.

Select Experience

  • Representing a class of dairy farmers in the northeastern United States against defendants in an action alleging violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully conspiring to eliminate competition for the marketing, sale and purchase of raw milk in the Northeast.
  • Represented a certified class of dairy farmers located in 14 southeastern states against Dairy Farmers of America, Dean Foods and a number of other defendants in an action alleging violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully conspiring to eliminate competition for the marketing, sale and purchase of raw milk in the Southeast. The litigation was settled for more than 70 percent of the alleged damages.
  • Represented a manufacturing client in two five-week jury trials regarding the prosecution of breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation claims involving the proper ownership and inventorship of fuel injector patents in which the plaintiff's verdicts were rendered. Moved for summary judgment against the defendants' counterclaims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation and fraud, which was granted.
More »

Experience

  • Representing a class of dairy farmers in the northeastern United States against defendants in an action alleging violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully conspiring to eliminate competition for the marketing, sale and purchase of raw milk in the Northeast.
  • Represented a certified class of dairy farmers located in 14 southeastern states against Dairy Farmers of America, Dean Foods and a number of other defendants in an action alleging violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully conspiring to eliminate competition for the marketing, sale and purchase of raw milk in the Southeast. The litigation was settled for more than 70 percent of the alleged damages.
  • Represented a manufacturing client in two five-week jury trials regarding the prosecution of breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation claims involving the proper ownership and inventorship of fuel injector patents in which the plaintiff's verdicts were rendered. Moved for summary judgment against the defendants' counterclaims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation and fraud, which was granted.
  • Represented a manufacturing client in a private antitrust case challenging parts acquisition and distribution practices. The client prevailed on directed verdict motion on the antitrust claims and obtained a jury verdict on the state law claims after presentation of the case to a jury in a five-week trial. 
  • Represented a manufacturing client in nine lawsuits over seven years involving claims of breach of contract, breach of license agreements, tortious interference, trade secret misappropriation and fraud in which settlements were obtained. Handled similar matters for the client against the same parties in multiple federal districts (patent infringement cases), Illinois state court (breach of contract claims) and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (separate interference and reexamination proceedings).
  • Represents a manufacturing client in a patent infringement action with a supplier alleging the client's infringement on five patents related to tool production. Countered with a claim that the supplier had infringed on two of the client's patents. The ongoing matter is challenging the business relationship between the client and supplier, adding challenges to the business operations feeding into competing lawsuits.
  • Served as counsel on behalf of steel company plaintiffs alleging unlawful conspiracy to monopolize against various railroads. The matter resulted in a plaintiff's verdict, which was upheld on appeal.
  • Represented a client in a patent infringement lawsuit involving WCDMA and GSM technology in which the stipulation of noninfringement of one patent was reached following the court's Markman ruling; on the second patent, an order was entered precluding the plaintiff's damages expert under Daubert and summary judgment of no-pursuit damages based on the plaintiff's failure to mark under 35 U.S.C. 287(a) was obtained.
  • Representing a manufacturing client in a patent infringement lawsuit involving vehicle tracking technology.
  • Representing a manufacturing client in a patent infringement suit related to vehicle management systems.
  • Representing a manufacturing client in a patent infringement suit related to an internet organizer for accessing geographically and topically based information.
  • Served as counsel in a four-week jury trial involving claims of copyright infringement and breach of contract involving software. Following the trial, the parties settled the case.
  • Acted as counsel in a bench trial. Sought a preliminary injunction against trade secret misappropriation in a case involving the provision of technical support services to the Royal Saudi Air Force.
  • Serving as counsel in a six-week jury trial, defended a client against antitrust, fraud and misrepresentation claims based on a manufacturer's export restrictions that were promulgated in order to support overseas distributors and customers. Obtained judgment as a matter of law on the antitrust claims at the close of all the evidence. The jury returned verdicts in favor of the client on all remaining claims. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Recognitions and Memberships

Recognitions

  • The Legal 500 United States (2014 to 2018)
    • Recommended in Antitrust - Civil Litigation/Class Actions: Defense
  • Washington, D.C. "Super Lawyer" (2012 to 2017)

Memberships

  • Pauline Newman American's Inn of Court
  • American Bar Association

Pro Bono

  • Worked with the Archdiocesan Legal Network.

Prior Positions

  • Howrey LLP, Commercial Litigation Group: Co-Chair

Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois
  • District of Columbia
  • New York

Education

  • J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1990, magna cum laude; Order of the Coif; Executive Editor, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics (1989 to 1990)
  • B.A., Cornell University, 1987

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Antitrust Advocate
Carl Hittinger, Jeanne-Michele Mariani Assess Justice Kavanaugh’s Testimony Regarding Antitrust Law
November 13, 2018
Partner Carl Hittinger and Associate Jeanne-Michele Mariani authored an article published Oct. 26, 2018, by The Legal Intelligencer. The article, “Justice Kavanaugh’s Antitrust Testimony Before the Senate Judiciary Committee,” examines the...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
A Look at Judge Kavanaugh's Antitrust Record
By Tyson Y. Herrold, Carl W. Hittinger
September 10, 2018
BakerHostetler Partner Carl Hittinger and Associate Tyson Herrold authored an article published Aug. 24, 2018, by The Legal Intelligencer. The article, “Is Judge Kavanaugh a Fan of Antitrust Laws? Let’s Take a Look,” examines the limited...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Update: Section 1 Challenge to Jimmy John's No-Poach Agreement Survives Motion to Dismiss
By William DeVinney
August 8, 2018
We recently wrote that the Department of Justice’s and the Federal Trade Commission’s announcements condemning no-poaching agreements have sparked civil class actions, including a putative class action against Jimmy John’s. Butler v. Jimmy...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
BakerHostetler Partners Publish Article Examining Reverse-Payment Suits Five Years After Actavis
August 6, 2018
Partners Carl Hittinger and Jeffry Duffy authored an article published by The Legal Intelligencer on July 27, 2018. The article, “Actavis and Reverse-Payments Suits in the Third Circuit After Five Years,” examines how purportedly...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Ohio v. American Express: The Supreme Court Credits American Express's Anti-Steering Provisions
By William DeVinney
July 10, 2018
In a 5-4 decision in Ohio v. American Express, the Supreme Court affirmed that the anti-steering provisions of American Express’s merchant agreement do not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Credit card companies’ core business involves...
Read More ->