Dan Taylor has trial, appellate and arbitration experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in a broad range of business litigation matters involving securities, ERISA, corporate governance, business torts, shareholder rights, intellectual property, and complex contracts. He has tried cases throughout the United States and in each of the three federal districts within North Carolina. He has extensive experience with matters in the North Carolina Business Court.
A 1968 graduate of the United States Military Academy and Vietnam veteran, he attended Wake Forest University School of Law, graduating cum laude. Following law school, he served as Law Clerk to Chief Judge Hiram H. Ward, MDNC. Mr. Taylor has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America® for Commercial Litigation continuously since 2005, for Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions continuously since 2006, and for Litigation - Securities, Litigation - ERISA, Litigation - Intellectual Property, and Litigation - Banking and Finance continuously since 2007. He was named "Lawyer of the Year" for the Greensboro region in the area of Securities Litigation by The Best Lawyers in America® in 2012 and “Lawyer of the Year” for the Greensboro region in the area of Banking and Finance Litigation by The Best Lawyers in America® in 2016 and 2018. Dan has been continuously named to Business North Carolina's "Legal Elite" list, recognized in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business, and listed as a "Top 100 North Carolina Super Lawyer" from 2008 through 2015 and as a "North Carolina Super Lawyer" from 2016 through 2018 by Super Lawyers magazine. He was recommended by Legal 500 US for Trade Secrets Litigation in 2014, 2016 and 2017.
Mr. Taylor, an instrument rated private pilot, has handled a variety of complex litigation matters for prominent Fortune 500 companies including Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Reynolds American Inc., E.I. du Pont de Nemours, Lincoln Financial Media, Western Union Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, Sara Lee Corporation, Branch Banking and Trust Company, Wachovia Bank, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, as well as for individuals and private entities.
Represented Capital City Group in suit against Sterling Capital in a diversity action based on a negotiable instrument. Capital City Group v. Sterling Capital, No. 1:04-cv-00821 (filed September 9, 2004 MDNC).
Represented Lowe’s Companies, Inc. in a suit brought by a former in-store service provider alleging multiple business tort claims, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, and copyright infringement arising out of Lowe’s relationship with the service provider and the termination of the provider’s contract. The Court denied plaintiffs’ attempt to take the depositions of multiple Lowe’s executives. After discovery closed, the firm was successful in persuading the Court to grant Lowe’s motion for summary judgment on 29 of the plaintiffs’ 30 claims. The remaining claim for an unpaid invoice was settled shortly before trial. Performance Sales & Marketing, LLC, et al. v. Lowe’s Cos., Inc., C.A. No 5:07CV00140-RLV-DLH (W.D.N.C.).
Represented Deloitte & Touche in fraud, truth in lending and other claims related to audit services provided to co-defendant. McKenna, et al. v. Sabbah, et al., No: 1:02-cv-01044-NCT (MDNC filed November 27, 2002).
Represented E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in a toxic tort personal injury action in Forsyth County, North Carolina. The matter was settled on the eve of trial for a nominal amount. Wolfe v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 07 CVS 3770 (Forsyth County filed May 30, 2007).
Successfully represented multiple defendants in diversity breach of contract action. Defendants’ motion to dismiss granted. WLC, LLC v. Watkins, et al., No: 1:06-cv-00129 (MDNC filed February 6, 2006).
Represented Federal Resources Co. in successful fraud suit against Kenneth Kochekian arising out of the purchase of Kenyan Furniture Company who orchestrated a massive accounts receiving Ponzi scheme which at the time was the largest Ponzi scheme perpetrated in North Carolina. Federal Resources Co., et al. v. Kenneth Kochekian, et al., No. 2:89-cv-00376 (filed May 30, 1989 MDNC).
Represented defendant Solar Communications in defense of breach of contract action and prosecution of counterclaims, tried non-jury before United States District Court Judge Frank Bullock resulting in substantial judgment on counterclaims for Solar Communications. Wheels Sports Group, et al. v. Solar Communications, No: 1:97-cv-00937 (MDNC filed September 11, 1997).
Represented the manufacturer of L’eggs® pantyhose in action to enjoin use of LEG LOOKS® mark on re-designed packaging. The Fourth Circuit reversed the judge of the District Court and remanded the case with instructions to enter an order permanently enjoining defendant from affixing its LEG LOOKS® trademark to any of its products placed in the same channels of distribution as those in which L’eggs® products are sold. Sara Lee Corp. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 81 F.3d 455 (4th Cir. 1996).
Successfully represented Sara Lee Corporation in defense of contract action involving property management issues. Sodexho Marriott Mgt. v. Sara Lee Corporation, et al., No: 1:01-cv-0001 (WDNC filed January 24, 2001).
Obtained in excess of $82 million on behalf of three groups of individuals who sold their companies to Waste Management, Inc. for WMI stock, which was thereafter impacted by Waste Management's 1998 $3.2 billion restatement of earnings. Cases involved very complex accounting issues. Two of the matters resulting in excess of $77 million were tried to conclusion. In re Lomangino v. Waste Management, Inc. American Arbitration Association (2002); Lomangino et. al. v. Waste Management, Inc., No. 1:02-cv-01020 (MDNC filed November 25, 2002); Holly, et. al. v. Waste Management, Inc., No 2:00-cv-00130 (EDVA filed February 23, 2000).; In re Hughes v. Waste Management Technologies, Inc. American Arbitration Association (1999); Hughes et. al. v. Waste Management Technologies, Inc., No: 1:00-cv-01061 (MDNC filed January 28, 2000).
Represented DuPont in multiple patent infringement cases in the United States District Court in the Middle District of North Carolina involving flexographic printing solvent patents and other patented matters. NUPRO Technologies, Inc. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., No. 1:06-cv-1061 (M.D.N.C. filed Nov. 9, 2006); E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. NUPRO Technologies, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-00199 (M.D.N.C. filed Mar. 25, 2006); HPS Technologies, Inc. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., No. 1:06-cv-01061 (M.D.N.C. filed Dec. 11, 2006).
Successfully represented Inspire Pharma and its Chief Executive Officer and President and its Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer in defense of putative class action for alleged violations of section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)(5) and for violations of section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Micro Investors, LLC v. Inspire Pharma, et al., No: 1:05-cv-00118-WLO (MDNC filed February 15, 2005).
Successfully represented Iscar Ltd. and related companies in patent infringement action based on plaintiff’s cutting tool patents. Suit resolved favorably shortly after filing of complaint. Iscar Ltd., et al. v. Kyocera Ind. Ceramics, et al., No. 3:98-cv-00527-HM (WDNC filed November 25, 1998).
Represented plaintiff Kelly Properties in successful action contracts and shareholder dispute action. Kelly Properties, et al. v. Turner, No: 1:01-cv-00356 (MDNC filed April 2, 2001).
Representation of Kennametal Inc., a $2 billion per year NYSE company, in a patent litigation action that its biggest global competitor filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, alleging that Kennametal infringed certain metal cutting tool patents. We successfully transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania – Kennametal's home jurisdiction – pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). We forced a voluntary dismissal of one of the two patents. We then obtained a favorable claim construction ruling in which the remaining patent was found invalid for indefiniteness. The parties later entered an agreement resolving their disputes in this action and other related actions. Also represented Kennametal in a patent litigation matter in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that Kennametal’s largest global competitor and related entities infringe claims of two patents owned by Kennametal. We obtained an agreement for one entity to cease infringing one of the patents. The parties were still litigating the other patent, which related to metal cutting tools, at the time of settlement. Also served as global coordinating counsel in a patent litigation action that Sandvik filed in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, United Kingdom. After a bench trial, the Court found Sandvik's patent invalid for indefiniteness, lack of enablement, and obviousness. Sandvik Intellectual Prop. AB v. Kennametal Inc., No. 09-0163 (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 27, 2009); Sandvik Intellectual Prop. AB, v. Kennametal Inc., No. 10-654 (W.D. Pa. filed May 13, 2010); Kennametal Inc. v. Sandvik, Inc. d/b/a Sandvik Coromant Co., et al., No. 09-cv-00857, (W.D. Pa. filed June 29, 2009); Sandvik Intellectual Property AB, Claimant and Kennametal UK Limited, Kennametal Inc., Kennametal Europe GMBH, Defendants; Claim No. HC 10 C02090, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court.
Insights View All
Wake Forest University, J.D. (1976) cum laude
George Washington University Graduate School of Government and Business Administration (1973)
United States Military Academy, B.S., Engineering (1968)
North Carolina (1976)
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina - Chief Judge Hiram H. Ward (Sep 1976-Aug 1978)
Judicial Conference of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Chief Justice Joseph Branch Inn of Court
Litigation Counsel of America (LCA), Fellow
Reynolda Rotary Club, Past President
Wake Forest University School of Law, Board of Visitors, Member
University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Parents Council (2002-2008)
Federal Bar Association
American Bar Association
North Carolina Bar Association
Forsyth County Bar Association
Forsyth Country Day School, Past Board and Executive Committee Member
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.