Joseph N. Akrotirianakis

Joseph N. Akrotirianakis, a partner at King & Spalding LLP, has a known reputation for litigating complex cases that often involve novel applications of the law. His practice focuses on groundbreaking legal theories in high-profile matters, especially those involving cutting-edge technologies and legal issues in the realms of computer fraud, unfair trade practices and false advertising.

Akrotirianakis has been at the forefront of significant litigation, including representing Eli Lilly in nationwide efforts to combat unfair trade practices related to Mounjaro, a blockbuster diabetes drug. His team’s actions against med spas, wellness centers, and compounding pharmacies for unlawful compounding, trademark infringement and false advertising have been pivotal in protecting patients and preserving the integrity of pharmaceutical products.

“The compounding pharmacies are not complying with state laws requiring premarket drug approval. The med spas and wellness centers are deceiving the public by using Lilly’s Mounjaro trademark while selling a different drug that is not Mounjaro and not FDA approved,” Akrotirianakis said. “These matters are intended to protect patients from the unlawful marketing and sale of non-FDA approved compounded products fraudulently claiming to be Mounjaro or that are otherwise unlawfully compounded.”

Another major highlight is his defense of NSO Group Technologies in several high-profile cases asserting novel claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and state law. These cases involve significant cross-border litigation challenges, including personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, choice of law, and the sovereignty of foreign governments, and are pending in the United States District Court.

“All of the foregoing matters involve ‘first-of-their-kind’ cases that involve application of untested legal theories,” Akrotirianakis said. “We specialize in litigating ‘no playbook’ cases, but it is always a challenge and never easy.”

Looking ahead, he said he expects the appellate courts and the Supreme Court to address questions about the presumptions that apply in Lanham Act false advertising cases.

“False advertising law is unsettled with respect to a number of judicially-created presumptions that do not appear in the Lanham Act,” Akrotirianakis said. “For example, should a plaintiff be entitled to a trial on a false advertising claim in a complicated multiplayer market where the ads in question do not reference the plaintiff by name, simply because the plaintiff claims a ‘chain of inferences’ can be used to establish harm to plaintiff? Whether intent to mislead alone can create a presumption of actual deception is similarly unsettled.”