Ian Goldrich is an experienced litigator who focuses his practice on trade secrets, intellectual property misuse and other complex commercial disputes. Mr. Goldrich also has extensive experience in public and private construction procurement and dispute resolution. Mr. Goldrich regularly handles litigation in federal and state courts, as well as various forms of alternative dispute resolution proceedings and administrative hearings. He has represented clients in cases involving trade secret misappropriation, restrictive covenants, intellectual property licensing, IP-based security and home automation technology, telecommunications, and large-scale public and private construction projects.
Mr. Goldrich has obtained favorable results for his clients throughout all phases of litigation, including dispositive motions, trials and appeals. Examples of his recent representations include an international manufacturer of IP-based security solutions in trade secret and restrictive covenant litigation; a west-coast distributor of high-end home automation technology systems in trade secret, breach of contract and business tort litigation; a Fortune 500 consumer electronics developer and manufacturer in litigation with a former distributor; an international fragrance manufacturer in litigation concerning a trademark licensing agreement; an international clothing designer and manufacturer in arbitration over a license agreement with its licensee in China; a sportswear franchisor in litigation with a New York franchisee; an international transportation contractor in disputes arising from an accident that occurred during the testing phase of a light-rail transit system; and a New York City developer in a lengthy arbitration arising from the renovation and conversion of 150-year-old Church and adjoining Academy into luxury condominiums.
Defended a major distributor of high-end home automation technology against manufacturer’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage. The firm successfully defended against the manufacturer’s “scorched-Earth” discovery tactics and the case soon settled for an infinitesimal amount as compared to the manufacturer’s initial damage claim.
Represented the directors and officers and affiliated companies of a bankrupt manufacturer of communications towers in defense of an action by the debtor trustee seeking damages and asserting claims for fraudulent conveyances, preferences and breaches of fiduciary duty.
Represented an Internet company as appellate counsel in securities fraud litigation.
Represented major Chinese financial institution in litigation arising from seller’s breach of warranties in merger agreement.
Achieved favorable settlement on behalf of client on its claims for breach of mortgage loan purchase agreement.
Represented a nationwide sportswear franchisor in litigation with a New York franchisee over breach of multiple franchise agreements. Achieved a favorable settlement at court-ordered mediation before magistrate judge.
Defended a major, international developer and manufacturer in federal court against over twenty separate contract, tort and equitable claim asserted by a terminated distributor of our client’s products. After extensive expedited discovery, the firm successfully defeated the distributor’s motion for a preliminary injunction and the case was ultimately resolved on terms extremely favorable to our client.
Represented a major international retail franchisor in litigation asserting claims by the franchisor for failure to pay franchise fees, breach of contract, breach of the non-compete clause, and breach of trademark and trade dress and defending claims of breach of contract, violation of state franchise regulations and wrongful termination. The case was successfully settled with the terminated franchisee giving up all rights to continue to operate as a franchisee and making a material payment to our client.
Represented an international developer and manufacturer of Internet Protocol-based security systems and its newly-hired marketing executive in litigation brought by the executive’s former employer against claims for breach of the executive’s restrictive covenant, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage and unjust enrichment. The firm successfully opposed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The case was then successfully settled with the executive free to work for his new employer.
Represented a designer and builder of light rail transit systems in connection with an accident investigation, insurance coverage disputes, delay claims and claims for additional compensation arising out of projects for public owners.
Represented lenders in mortgage foreclosure proceedings arising out of borrowers’ defaults on IDA-financed construction projects.
Served as co-lead counsel in an international arbitration proceeding for plaintiff licensor JA Apparel Corp. against a Chinese licensee. After conducting a full trial on liability, we successfully obtained an arbitral award confirming the termination of the license, finding that the licensee materially breached the license agreement, enjoining the licensee's activities in China and dismissing the China licensee's counterclaim. We also obtained a damages award in the amount of $1.2 million, a permanent injunction including an order to return or destroy all remaining inventory, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. This arbitration award was later formally recognized by the Shanghai Number One Intermediate People's Court.
The firm represented Joh. A. Benckiser (Benckiser) and Coty, Inc. (Coty) in a breach of trademark license agreement for Stetson fragrance products. Stetson sought a declaratory judgment that it had the right to terminate the license, along with unspecified monetary damages, on the ground, among others, that Benckiser and Coty failed to commercialize Stetson fragrance in every country and jurisdiction of the world. The firm successfully moved the N.Y. Supreme Court, Commercial Division, to dismiss Stetson's primary claim concerning the obligation to commercialize world-wide, and then defeated Stetson's appeal to and motion for reargument in the Appellate Division, First Department. John B. Stetson Co. v. Joh. A. Benckiser GmbH, 81 A.D.3d 559, 917 N.Y.S.2d 189 (1st Dep't 2011), rearg. denied Ind. No. 600074/10, slip op. at 1 (1st Dep't June 14, 2011).
Achieved a major victory by defeating class certification in a significant class action filed against YellowPages.com. This result was preceded by procedural victories in terms of having separately-filed class actions transferred to the Southern District of New York, and was followed by a ruling by the Second Circuit denying interlocutory appellate review of the district court’s order denying class certification. The first of these cases, filed in New Jersey state court, was removed by YellowPages.com to the District of New Jersey. Two follow-on class actions were then filed against YellowPages.com in the Southern District of California. As for the New Jersey case, we persuaded the New Jersey federal district court to transfer the action to the Southern District of New York, enforcing a forum selection clause in the Terms and Conditions between YellowPages.com and its advertising customers. Kilpatrick Townsend was then able to persuade the Southern District of California to transfer the follow-on class actions to the Southern District of New York, on (among other grounds) the “interest of justice” element of the federal venue statute. Through such procedural moves, we were able to achieve an “MDL-like” consolidation of separate but related class action lawsuits filed in different federal district courts. On the class certification issue, the district court ruled that YellowPages.com's sales practices and its individual customers’ experiences were too varied to support class certification. The cases remain pending before the Southern District of New York. Kowalski v. YellowPages.com, No. 10 Civ. 7318 (PGG), 2012 WL 1097350 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 31, 2012) (order denying class certification).
Represented a New York City developer in connection with disputes arising on a residential condominium project, including arbitration against the general contractor, subcontractor mechanic’s lien claims, and claims against the general contractor and its surety. The firm obtained a multi-million dollar award at arbitration against the general contractor, including an award of all attorneys’ fees and costs, and then sought to collect the entire award from the general contractor’s surety in litigation in federal court. After the court held that the surety could be held liable for the award of attorneys’ fees in the arbitration, the case was successfully mediated to settlement on terms considered very favorable by our client.
Fordham University School of Law, J.D. (2000)
Fordham University College at Lincoln Center, B.A. (1996)
New York (2001)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2012)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2011)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (2005)
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (2002)
Commercial Division Law Report, Contributing Editor
New York State Bar Association, Committee on the Commercial Division, Member
Fordham International Law Journal, Former Notes and Articles Editor
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.