Ron Raider concentrates his practice on complex civil litigation, technology litigation, international arbitrations, and environmental litigation. He has represented clients in litigation matters pertaining to copyright infringement, licensing and development agreements, federal and state tort actions, class actions, deceptive trade practices, and consumer products matters. He has defended several corporate clients in patent infringement litigation, and negotiated several federal and Clean Water Act enforcement consent decrees. He joined the firm in 1990 and was elected to partnership in 1995. 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 a Consortium of Engineering and Construction Companies in disputes involving the construction of a hydropower electrical generating facility in an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration. The matter resolved favorably before the final hearings.
Represented a toy company licensor in a dispute with a former licensee administered by the International Institution for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR). The matter resulted in a favorable arbitration award.
Represented an international engineering company in a trade secret arbitration before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). The matter resolved favorable before the final hearings.
The firm served as lead counsel representing an international telecommunications provider in an investment arbitration before three distinguished international arbitrators, alleging billions in damages in connection with the alleged right to exercise a stock put. The matter resolved favorably after phase one of the arbitral hearings in Miami, Florida and Washington, D.C.
Represented a Fortune 500 company in a dispute with a joint venture partner in Mexico relative to the client's right to transfer its interests in an equity affiliate as part of the sale of its textile assets.
Represented a Fortune 500 company in a dispute with a joint venture partner in Japan relative to the client's right to transfer its interests in an equity affiliate as part of the sale of its textile assets.
Represented a Fortune 500 company in an international arbitration administered by the ICC involving a longstanding contract with a partner relative to the commercial development of a pesticide. A tribunal was selected and the parties presented written statements to the Tribunal. The parties reached a negotiated resolution.
Represented the creditors' committee and then plan trustee for Vesta Insurance Group Inc. in connection with its liquidation. The firm assisted with reaching a complex multimillion dollar claim settlement with the Texas Insurance Commissioner. The plan trustee obtained a multimillion dollar settlement of a lawsuit handled by the firm against former officers for breach of fiduciary duties. In re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc., Case No. 06-02517 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. filed July 18, 2006).
Represented a telecommunications company in an antitrust case which raised issues under essential facilities doctrine and the intersection of antitrust law and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The United States Supreme Court ultimately decided the antitrust liability issues in a companion case in our client’s favor. Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 US 398 (2004).
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Chrysler Group and Mercedes-Benz USA LLC in connection with a string of successes in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin and the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas against related entities Orion, Taurus, and ST Sales Tech. The plaintiff entities, who had asserted several patents against Chrysler and Mercedes after a settlement agreement was in place, were put on the defensive when we asserted counterclaims for breach of a previous settlement agreement. The United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment for Chrysler and MBUSA finding non-infringement, invalidity, and dismissing all the patent-related claims. Later a jury returned a verdict on liability in favor of Chrysler and MBUSA on the breach of contract claims. After a finding that the plaintiff had not acted in good faith, the court then awarded contract damages and legal fees. Related suits were later dismissed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of no liability and the award of attorney fees to our client. (Judge Crabb and Judge Davis). Taurus IP, LLC v. Chrysler, LLC and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 07-0158 (W.D. Wis. filed Mar. 20, 2007); Orion IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler (E.D. Tex.) and Orion IP, LLC v. MBUSA (E.D. Tex.).
Represented a Fortune 500 company in a "settlement fraud" case alleging federal RICO, fraud, and other state law claims arising out of our client's alleged fraudulent inducement of hundreds of settlements of product liability claims in the early 1990s. Between 1996 and 2000, approximately 70 plaintiffs asserted "settlement fraud" claims against our client in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii or in Hawaii state court, and the company asserted claims in federal court for breach of the settlement agreement. Ultimately, all of the federal cases were consolidated under the Matsuura case style. Our client originally prevailed in the district court on motions to dismiss the "settlement fraud" claims based on provisions in the settlement agreements. When those rulings were superseded by a ruling of the Delaware Supreme Court, motions for judgment were filed on the pleadings which led to a certified question proceeding before the Hawaii Supreme Court. After the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled, the District Court granted a number of dispositive motions filed by our client, as did the Hawaii state court in a related case. During the pendency of appeals from those decisions, the vast majority of the Hawaii claimants settled. Similar dispositions results in Florida and Georgia litigations.
The firm served as lead counsel in representing the city of Pueblo, Colorado in a successful challenge to parts of an EPA rule on sludge handling requirements and biosolids regulations for selenium. Leather Indus., et al. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 393 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
The firm served as lead counsel to City of Atlanta regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permitting and enforcement issues for the City’s water reclamation centers and combined sewer overflow facilities and the related collection and transmission system. Representation also included negotiating a federal Consent Decree with the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Justice, and the State of Georgia to settle a citizen suit filed by a citizen activist group. Recently was allowed by the federal district court to join extraterritorial users of the City's water system to the pending Consent Decree matter when the City was faced with a taking of the City's water assets. All disputes regarding service area and assets will now be resolved under the jurisdiction of the federal court, rather than the state court.
Assisted a Specially Appointed Attorney General to represent the Georgia Ports Authority in claims challenging the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project.
Insights View All
George Washington University, J.D. (1985) with honors
State University of New York, University at Albany, B.A. (1982)
New York (1986)
District of Columbia (1988)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
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.