J. Noah Hagey

Hagey is the founder and managing partner of the business litigation and trial boutique BraunHagey & Bordon LLP. Before law school, he worked as an economist in the United Kingdom, studying the integration of European markets under the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.

After graduating from the University of Texas School of Law, he returned to the UK to study European competition law and to work at a British law firm.

In cases like his $16.8 million jury trial antitrust win for the Orion U.S. telescope brand over a Chinese rival and others in November, Hagey's international economics training comes in handy.

"It helps to have an understanding of how dominant firms can capture markets and engage in collusive pricing," he said. "It's what the European Union was dealing with in integrating their markets."

The jury award swelled to more than $50 million in damages after trebling and attorney fees. U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila of San Jose also ordered more than $4 million in sanctions against the defense for a post-verdict attempt to transfer assets outside the U.S. The defense has said it will appeal.

The Orion telescope case tested his skills, he said.

"The Northern District is one of the most difficult antirust venues in the country because jurors there are among the most sophisticated in the U.S.," he said.

Orion was one of the first cases to challenge vertical integration of dominant foreign manufacturers with existing American brands.

It was also one of the few cases to reach trial in the Northern District and end in a plaintiffs' jury verdict, he added. Optronic Technologies Inc. dba Orion Telescopes & Binoculars v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd., 16-CV06370 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 1, 2016).

"In Orion, almost all of our jurors had advanced degrees. One gentleman had three masters. When you have the burden of proof, it's intrinsically two or three times harder because you are dealing with highly skeptical individuals who are much less inclined to take the word of any lawyer," Hagey said.

His cross examination of the defendant's principal, Peter Li, was designed to show he was collaborating with his competitor, based on contradictions between documents and deposition testimony. "At one point, he said he didn't understand how to write email. He also said it was hot in the deposition room. He didn't make a whole lot of sense," Hagey said.

When Hagey produced documents the defense had fought hard to keep out of evidence showing a huge price differential in what the rivals were paying, "You almost heard an audible gasp as the jury saw that what the defense was saying just wasn't true."

-- John Roemer