George Murphy focuses his practice on complex federal court litigation involving commercial litigation, patent disputes, product liability, and cases involving the acquisition or disposition of large companies. Mr. Murphy has successfully represented numerous public and private companies in all phases of civil trial and appellate practice in state and federal courts across the United States, as well as before arbitration tribunals. Mr. Murphy has been particularly effective in leading teams of attorneys in large complex patent and commercial cases as counsel for Fortune 500 companies.
Mr. Murphy is also knowledgeable in the areas of alternative fee agreements and early case assessment and has been featured on several occasions as a speaker or panelist on these topics. Over the years he has held a number of significant firm management positions, including responsibility for the firm's Litigation department and as leader of the firm’s Complex Commercial Litigation team.
Mr. Murphy has been named a Georgia “Super Lawyer” in Business Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine for several years, most recently in 2017 for Intellectual Property Litigation. He has also been recognized in the 2012 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for Patent Litigation and in 2018 and the five years immediately preceding, he was recognized for Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation. Mr. Murphy is listed in the 2017 and the eight years immediately preceding editions of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business for General Commercial Litigation. He has been recognized as a 2015 "Legal Elite" for General Practice/Trial Law by Georgia Trend magazine. Mr. Murphy is also recognized as one of the top business litigators in the nation by a 2009 Corporate Counsel Edition of Super Lawyers magazine. He is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure’s standards and policies.
Represented the underwriter in a $27.1 million public offering undertaken in connection with a second step mutual holding company reorganization.
The firm served as lead counsel in representation of AT&T Mobility in connection with multimillion dollar post-closing adjustment related to sale of divisional business unit. The case was settled through arbitration.
The firm served as lead counsel in representation of seller of cruise line. Recovered substantial arbitration award in purchase price adjustment proceeding initiated by buyer.
Represented an Ohio-based financial institution on a wide variety of corporate and securities matters, beginning with the company's 1992 IPO and including subsequent public company reporting obligations, merger transaction, equity compensation plans and other executive compensation agreements. The firm’s representation also included negotiating with dissident stockholders, handling the issuance of trust preferred securities and other corporate and regulatory matters.
Represented Greater Atlantic Financial Corp. in its $1.1 million acquisition of Dominion Savings Bank, FSB, Front Royal, VA.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Viad Corp., seller of large aircraft fuel services company, and recovered substantial award in purchase price adjustment proceeding initiated by buyer.
Successfully coordinated interstate seizure of infringing products for Viad Corp., a consumer products company, in a multimillion dollar trademark infringement case.
Successfully represented major investors in New York based entertainment company to break board deadlock and ultimately obtain control to compel the sale of the company.
Represented issuer, Greater Atlantic Financial Corp., in $9.6 million rights offering of convertible trust preferred securities.
Successfully defended E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in a toxic tort action claiming wrongful death allegedly caused by exposure to trace benzene.
Represented E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in a wrongful death action claiming that a young child died in a house fire allegedly caused by an automobile's speed control deactivation device that was subject to one of the largest automotive recalls in the history of the United States. DuPont was named as a defendant because it produced a component part that was used in the speed control deactivation device. After moving for summary judgment based on the lack of credible causation evidence or expert testimony, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against DuPont for very little consideration.
Successfully defended paperboard container manufacturer in a wrongful termination action brought by a timber supplier who was seeking to recover the lost profits that it allegedly sustained after our client terminated the parties’ contract. The timber supplier relied on allegations of promissory estoppel and oral contract to claim that our client should have continued purchasing pulpwood from the supplier, despite the termination, until such time that the supplier disposed of its remaining inventory. During discovery, the timber supplier provided deposition testimony acknowledging that no enforceable promises were ever made that could support a claim for breach of oral contract or promissory estoppel. Accordingly, we moved for summary judgment on all claims asserted by the timber supplier, and following oral argument, the court granted our client's motion. The supplier appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Court of Appeals, and after the parties had fully briefed the issues, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s decision.
Successfully represented E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and obtained significant monetary recovery from distributor following distributor's termination. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Sierra Stone LLC, Case No. 2006CV113367 (Super. Ct. Fulton County, Ga. filed Mar. 1, 2006); Stoneworkz IP Holding Co., LLC v. Turnberry Stone, LLC, Case No. 06-03366 (Dist. Ct. Dallas County, Tex. filed Apr. 6, 2006).
Represented the issue in a $15.9 million public offering undertaken in connection with the mutual-to-stock conversion and holding company formation by a mid-Atlantic savings institution.
Represented a Midwestern institution in connection with the exchange of trust preferred securities for cash and common securities.
Routinely participates in pro bono services with a focus on representing actions of tenants seeking the return of their security deposits from landlords who withheld them in violation of law. The work of these lawyers has recovered thousands of dollars for tenants, enabling them to move into other housing and move on with their lives.
Negotiated the voluntary dismissals, without payment, of hundreds of toxic tort - Silica lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions following initial aggressive defensive motion practice.
Lead counsel representing GP Chemicals Equity LLC (GP) in an action alleging breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of the Lanham Act, and violations of Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act. We obtained summary judgment and the court entered judgment in GP’s favor on all claims asserted against it. Affirmed on appeal. Importers Service Corporation v. GP Chemicals Equity LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Civil Action File No. 1:07-cv-00745-JOF.
Represented Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. in a patent infringement action filed by Genetic Technologies Limited (“GTG”). The plaintiff sued nine defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin alleging patent infringement of its patent relating to methods of analysis of non-coding DNA sequences. Several large companies had previously been involved in litigation with GTG over this patent. As a result of licenses GTG negotiated with those defendants, GTG sought millions of dollars in past damages and future license fees from Pioneer. Because of intensive defensive efforts and factual investigation, we approached GTG regarding settlement. These discussions resulted in a favorable settlement of the matter, the terms of which are confidential. Genetic Technologies Limited v. Beckman Coulter, Inc. et al., No. 3:10-cv-00069 (W.D. Wisc. filed Feb. 11, 2010).
Served as lead counsel for our client who was a victim of labor trafficking. The firm’s client, Thembi Dlamini, was enticed to Atlanta from her native Swaziland, a country in Southern Africa, in 2005 to purportedly work in Atlanta for two weeks to cater a couple’s son’s upcoming wedding. When she arrived in Atlanta, her passport and return plane ticket were confiscated and she learned that everything she had been told was lies and that s
University of Georgia, J.D. (1983) cum laude
Furman University, B.A. (1980) magna cum laude
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Supreme Court of Georgia
Georgia Court of Appeals
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court - Northern District of Georgia
U.S. District Court - Middle District of Georgia
U.S. District Court - Western District of Wisconsin
Eleventh Circuit Historical Society, Georgia Vice President
Phi Beta Kappa, Member
Member of American Health Lawyers Association
Member of Georgia Hospital Association
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.