William DeVinney

Counsel

Washington, D.C.
T +1.202.861.1554
F +1.202.861.1783

Overview

William DeVinney has a broad litigation practice that includes antitrust, intellectual property, commercial class action, securities and other complex commercial litigation. He has extensive trial experience, both as a member of trial teams and as first chair in jury and bench trials, arbitrations proceedings and regulatory hearings, and has argued cases before several federal and state appellate courts. William also counsels clients on antitrust issues.

Select Experience

  • Member of a team representing 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. Litigation was settled for more than 70 percent of the alleged damages.
  • Represented a multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology company in prosecuting a biotechnology patent infringement action against a competitor, and defended against competitor’s Sherman Act Section 2 counterclaim alleging that the client had either monopolized or attempted to monopolize the alleged market for transgenic corn seed.
More »

Experience

  • Member of a team representing 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. Litigation was settled for more than 70 percent of the alleged damages.
  • Represented a multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology company in prosecuting a biotechnology patent infringement action against a competitor, and defended against competitor’s Sherman Act Section 2 counterclaim alleging that the client had either monopolized or attempted to monopolize the alleged market for transgenic corn seed.
  • Successfully defended a manufacturing company against Lanham Act false-advertising claims brought by a competitor, using discovery to formulate counterclaims that forced the competitor to drop its claims and agree to a $7.5 million-dollar settlement in the client’s favor and other corrective actions to create a level playing field; also persuaded court to sanction competitor’s in-house general counsel for unethical conduct in bringing claims against client. Scranton Products, Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., No. 2014-cv-00853 (M.D. Pa.).
  • Defended an international computer chip manufacturer in federal court and before the International Trade Commission against claims that its video display controller infringed the plaintiff’s patent.
  • Defended a multinational chemical and agricultural biotechnology company accused of monopolizing the market for the transgenic corn seed industry. A motion for class certification by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial court and before the Third Circuit on appeal.
  • Represented a multinational technology company in a private antitrust claim brought by a competitor, as well as in investigations brought by the European Union, the Federal Trade Commission and state government enforcement agencies.
  • Defended a former executive of Bankers Trust Corp. in a criminal trial and related Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administrative proceedings arising from the alleged improper accounting treatment of unclaimed funds. After a six-week jury trial, the client was acquitted of all 36 counts in the indictment and a favorable settlement was reached with the SEC.
  • In representation of shopping center developer, formulated cutting-edge antitrust claim against competing developer and supermarket chain for unlawful agreement to restrain trade in local supermarket sector; complaint withstood aggressive motions to dismiss, with court ruling that it pled a plausible prima facie case under the Sherman Act and various related state-law causes of action, and that client is entitled to full discovery on its claims.

Recognitions and Memberships

Pro Bono

  • Served as lead counsel for three congressional representatives and a public interest group filing an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court.
  • Has represented several clients in fair housing cases in antidiscrimination, fair housing, landlord/tenant and contractual disputes.

Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • District of Columbia
  • New York
  • Virginia

Education

  • J.D., William & Mary Law School, 1998
  • B.S., Cornell University, 1991

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Antitrust Advocate
Is Big Chicken Cooked? DOJ Intervenes in Price-Fixing Investigation
August 5, 2019
Pork is the other white meat, beef is what’s for dinner, and chicken is now under investigation by the Department of Justice for possible antitrust violations. Looks like the DOJ is back in the criminal cartel investigation business. In...
Read More ->
Class Action Lawsuit Defense
Trial Courts Wrestle with Expert Testimony and Daubert at Class Certification
By William DeVinney
March 19, 2019
Expert testimony plays a critical role in nearly all putative class actions, including at the class certification stage where parties rely on expert evidence to address the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Supreme...
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
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 ->
Antitrust Advocate
The Department of Justice Weighs In on the Application of North Carolina Dental Examiners to the Florida State Bar
By William DeVinney
March 23, 2018
The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently took the uncommon step of submitting an amicus brief to weigh in on a motion to dismiss. TIKD Services, LLC v. The Florida Bar, No. 1:17-cv-24103 (S.D. Fla. filed Nov. 8, 2017), Dkt. 115...
Read More ->