John B. Quinn

Quinn is proud that the firm he founded has developed a unique "litigation only" business model, which has resulted, he said, in its having become the world's largest litigation firm and the second most profitable firm of any kind based on profits per partner. "We eat and sleep litigation," he said. "That's all we've ever done. We work on the most important high stakes cases. Every year, we're before a jury somewhere, either asking for more than a billion dollars or defending against a billion-dollar claim."

Facing off against three major firms on behalf of client Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiaries in the "holy war" over Apple Inc.'s Android smartphone operating system, Quinn persuaded jurors that two of Apple's five patents at issue were not infringed and that Apple's damages were less than 6 percent of the $2.2 billion Apple sought. Quinn's trial team took the battle to Apple, establishing that Apple itself was an infringer of technology covered by one of Samsung's counterclaim patents. Aspects of the massive case are currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. "Apple got some very large jury verdicts, and both have been whittled down substantially," Quinn said. "At this point, the case is before the nation's highest appellate courts. It's still an open question whether Apple will be able to recover anything." Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 12-cv-00630 (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 8, 2012).

Quinn called it "a very substantial case, one of the larger in my career, involving products most of us are familiar with."

Even so, amid that battle, he found time last year to fight off antitrust claims over ice cream for client Nestle USA Inc. "That's the life of a litigator," Quinn said. "At every moment, you have cases at various stages. Nestle is a category captain," he said, "responsible for stocking supermarket freezers and accused of excluding a small company's product." Clemmy's LLC contended that Nestle conspired with leading chains, including Kroger Co., Safeway Inc. and Albertsons LLC and their distributors, to restrain trade in violation of California's Cartwright Act. Quinn argued and won Nestle's motion for summary judgment on the Cartwright Act claim. Clemmy's dismissed its other claims with prejudice and did not appeal. Clemmy's LLC v. Nestle USA Inc., BC500811 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Feb. 11, 2013).

— John Roemer