Areas of Practice

Mr. Hainline has tried cases in wide-ranging areas of the law, including toxic torts, environment, antitrust, securities, employment issues, false advertising, construction, patent, trademark and media defense. Many of his cases have involved the presentation of complex scientific and/or economic evidence. Mr. Hainline has often been retained as trial counsel in “crisis litigation” – where a case has been initially handled by others. He has appeared in the Supreme Court of the United States and has argued before seven United States Courts of Appeals.

Some of Mr. Hainline’s recent trial work includes the following representative cases:

• Mr. Hainline successfully represented the major canned tuna manufacturers (Del Monte/Starkist, Bumblebee and Chicken of the Sea) in a case brought by the California Attorney General under California’s Proposition 65 concerning warnings for mercury in tuna. The court issued its ruling finding that Proposition 65 warnings for canned tuna were preempted by federal law, and that in any event, the levels of methyl-mercury in canned tuna did not violate Proposition 65.
• Mr. Hainline is currently representing Pepperidge Farm in a series of cases around the country in which distributors are challenging the Pepperidge Farm consignment agreement.
• Mr. Hainline represented Campbell Soup Company in a patent case claiming ownership of Campbell’s IQ Maximizer shelving system. In public statements to investors, Campbell had...more »

Mr. Hainline has tried cases in wide-ranging areas of the law, including toxic torts, environment, antitrust, securities, employment issues, false advertising, construction, patent, trademark and media defense. Many of his cases have involved the presentation of complex scientific and/or economic evidence. Mr. Hainline has often been retained as trial counsel in “crisis litigation” – where a case has been initially handled by others. He has appeared in the Supreme Court of the United States and has argued before seven United States Courts of Appeals.

Some of Mr. Hainline’s recent trial work includes the following representative cases:

• Mr. Hainline successfully represented the major canned tuna manufacturers (Del Monte/Starkist, Bumblebee and Chicken of the Sea) in a case brought by the California Attorney General under California’s Proposition 65 concerning warnings for mercury in tuna. The court issued its ruling finding that Proposition 65 warnings for canned tuna were preempted by federal law, and that in any event, the levels of methyl-mercury in canned tuna did not violate Proposition 65.
• Mr. Hainline is currently representing Pepperidge Farm in a series of cases around the country in which distributors are challenging the Pepperidge Farm consignment agreement.
• Mr. Hainline represented Campbell Soup Company in a patent case claiming ownership of Campbell’s IQ Maximizer shelving system. In public statements to investors, Campbell had identified the IQ Maximizer as an essential element in its plan to regain the profitability of Campbell’s soup business. After the court allowed Campbell to file a Walker Process counterclaim, based upon Mr. Hainline’s deposition of the plaintiff, the matter settled for nuisance value, with Campbell’s ownership of the patent secured.
• Mr. Hainline is representing Roxane Pharmaceuticals in a case challenging the Novartis patent for the branded form of oxcarbazepine.
• Mr. Hainline is representing DealerTrack in a patent infringement case against two of the company’s competitors in the auto-finance industry.
• Mr. Hainline is representing Silgan Container Corporation in several cases arising from environmental issues connected to an Indiana site that Alcoa sold to Silgan.
• Mr. Hainline represented AT&T in a class action filed under California Business and Professions Code § 17200. Class counsel was seeking damages of $500 million, and the same counsel had recently won $300 million against MasterCard in the same court. He successfully moved to exclude key evidence shortly before trial was to begin, after which plaintiffs sought a stay so the matter could be mediated. The case settled with SBC providing phone cards to class members who responded to the settlement notice.
• Mr. Hainline represented Gillette in a false advertising case against Philips/Sonicare, which had advertised that Gillette’s Braun Oral-B electric toothbrush was more abrasive than the Sonicare, and that the Braun Oral-B increased bacteria beneath the gumline. After a four-week jury trial, all Sonicare’s challenged advertisements were enjoined and Sonicare recovered nothing on its counterclaim. Although Gillette had record profits on the Braun Oral-B during the pendency of the false ads, the jury awarded Gillette more than $4 million in damages.
• Mr. Hainline then represented Gillette in a case challenging Sonicare’s core advertising claim of cleaning with sonic waves beyond the tips of the bristles. He developed the scientific evidence showing that there was no efficacy to the sonic claims and prepared and filed a Lanham Act claim challenging these claims. Mr. Hainline also prepared a patent false-marking case and presented it to Sonicare’s parent, Philips. The case then settled, and Sonicare ceased making sonic cleaning and beyond-the-bristle claims. Thereafter, Gillette’s Braun Oral-B regained its position as the number one power brush with dental professionals, which Sonicare had assumed.
• Mr. Hainline also represented Gillette in several cases challenging Colgate’s toothbrush advertising. In each case, Colgate terminated the challenged ad campaign.
• Near the close of discovery, Mr. Hainline assumed the role of lead counsel in a fraud and breach of contract case against Campbell Soup Company in Spokane, Washington. He amended the answer to assert a counterclaim, and thereafter obtained a summary judgment dismissing all claims against the client and obtained a judgment of more than $1 million against the plaintiff on the counterclaim. The case was important to Campbell Soup because it was eliminating its grower contracts, and a loss would have lead to substantial national litigation.
• Near the close of discovery, Mr. Hainline was retained as trial counsel for Campbell Soup Company in state court in South Carolina. The case was brought by local growers suing for the substantial value of their investments after the company closed its poultry processing plant. He amended the answer to assert a counterclaim based on the theory that plaintiffs breached the parties’ integration clause when they claimed that Campbell had made oral promises to induce them to build turkey grow out houses to Campbell’s specifications. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for Campbell on both plaintiffs’ claims and on the counterclaim. The case was important to Campbell Soup because Campbell was eliminating the business of processing its own poultry ingredients, and a loss would have lead to national litigation.
• Near the close of discovery, Mr. Hainline was retained by a Campbell Soup Company subsidiary in a fraud and breach of contract case brought in state court in Miami by a Cuban-American refugee. The jury returned a defense verdict on all plaintiff’s claims.
• Following the Ninth Circuit’s reinstatement of a multimillion dollar damage award and a remand of the case for trial on punitive damages only, Mr. Hainline was retained by Vlasic as trial counsel in the case. Despite the mandate, he persuaded the U.S. District Court in San Diego to retry the entire case. The jury returned a verdict of less than $1 million, with no punitive damages, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this ruling.
• Ten days before trial, Mr. Hainline was retained as trial counsel by Campbell Soup Company to try a trademark infringement case challenging the V8 Splash trademark. Shortly before Mr. Hainline was retained, the judge announced that she would allow the case to go to the jury with plaintiff seeking Campbell’s profits on V8 Splash. The case was tried to a jury in the U.S. District Court in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. After three weeks of trial, the case settled within insurance coverage after the judge threw out plaintiff’s damage theory.
• In the midst of discovery, Campbell Soup Company retained Mr. Hainline as trial counsel to prevent a key executive from joining Heinz. At the time, Heinz was the major manufacturer of private label soup and therefore Campbell’s principal competitor. After trial to the court in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the executive was restricted to a non-competing product (canned tuna), with reporting obligations on his activities, audited by a major accounting firm.
• New World Pasta retained Mr. Hainline to prevent an executive from accepting employment with a competitor. New World had a confidentiality agreement, but no non-compete agreement. A Pennsylvania state court granted a TRO and preliminary and permanent injunctions.
• Vlasic retained Mr. Hainline to prevent an executive from accepting employment with a competitor pickle maker. The client had a confidentiality agreement, but no non-compete agreement. The Federal District Court in Camden, New Jersey granted a TRO and preliminary and permanent injunctions.
• In a case that had been pending for two years, Mr. Hainline was retained as trial counsel in a case brought against the major tuna manufacturers under California’s Proposition 65 concerning mercury in tuna.
• In Mesirow v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 703 F.2d 339 (9 Cir. 1983), the Ninth Circuit upheld Pepperidge Farm’s right to direct bill chain stores at Pepperidge’s price on consigned product, on which the distributors bore the risk of product loss.
• In General Business Systems v. North American Phillips Corporation, 699 F.2d 965 (9 Cir. 1983), the Ninth Circuit held that a company could not monopolize a peripheral market, despite having a 100% share, if it did not have monopoly power in the market for the underlying principal product.
• In Rickards v. Caning Eye Registration Foundation, 788 F.2d 1329 (9 Cir. 1986), companion to Rickards v. Caning Eye Registration Foundation, 704 F.2d 1449 (9 Cir. 1983), the Ninth Circuit held that a single suit brought as an attempt to monopolize could violate the antitrust laws, even without monopoly power, and that the costs of defending the underlying suit could constitute antitrust injury where there was no other injury.
• Mr. Hainline represented the family of a woman slain by a California Highway Patrolman in Knott v. State of California, 23 Cal.App.4^th 210 (1994), where the appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Knott’s respondeat superior claims against the State of California.