I. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION LITIGATION
Mr. Kalman's practice has also involved his representation of companies in the consumer
electronics products, telephone equipment, liner board and corrugated box, apparel,
industrial fastener, specialty steel and dental industries, in connection with complex and
protracted antitrust, antidumping and unfair competition litigation. See, e.g., Matsushita
Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986); In Re Japanese
Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 213, 319 (3d Cir. 1983), 513 F.Supp.
1100 (E.D. Pa. 1981), 505 F.Supp. 1125, 1190, 1313 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
An antitrust action involving the monopolization of the telephone equipment market
(repertory dialer technology) which was brought on behalf of DASA Corporation by Mr.
Kalman in June, 1983, against AT&T, Western Electric Company and Bell Telephone
Laboratories, inc. (Civil Action No. 83-2596; U.S.D.C., E.D. Pa.) concluded with a $25
million settlement in July, 1984.
Mr. Kalman has prosecuted antitrust claims arising out of concerted boycotts, exclusive
dealing and supply arrangements, and practices of monopolization and attempted
monopolization in the United States industrial fastener industry. His efforts resulted in
the jury awarding his client, Applied Bolting Technology Products, Inc., in excess of
$1.3 million in compensatory damages. See J & M Turner, Inc. v. Applied Bolting
Technology Products, Inc., 1998-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,059 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff'd.,
1999-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,458 (3d Cir. 1998).
II. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION AND COUNSELING
Mr. Kalman has represented and counseled companies in an assortment of business,
trade, intellectual property, brand name product diversion matters and disputes, including
companies in the apparel manufacturing and retail industries, such as Jordache, Guess,
The Gitano Group, Sunshine Blues and Today's Man.
He has prosecuted and defended numerous cases involving copyright, trademark and
patent infringement, false advertising, misappropriation of trade secrets and parallel and
gray market product diversion. See, e.g., Masquerade Novelty, Inc. v. Unique Industries,
Inc., 912 F.2d 663 (3d Cir. 1990); Premier Dental Products Company v. Darby Dental
Supply Company, 794 F.2d 850 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 950 (1986); J & M
Turner, Inc. v. Applied Bolting Technology Products, Inc., 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1737 (E.D.
Pa.), aff’d., 96 F.3d 1433 (3d Cir. 1996), subsequent proceedings, 1997-2 CCH Trade
Cases ¶71,857 (E.D. Pa. 1997), 1998-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,059 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff’d., 1999-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,458 (3d Cir. 1998); Eagle's Eye, Inc. v. Ambler
Fashion Shop, Inc., 627 F. Supp. 856 (E.D. Pa. 1985); Levy v. K.O.A.O., 36 U.S.P.Q.2d
1724 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Kerr Corp. v. North American Dental Wholesalers, Inc., 2011
WL 2269991 (C.D. Cal. 2011); North American Dental Wholesalers, Inc. v. Danaher
Corp., 2011 WL 3606866 (E.D. Pa. 2011); Dentsply International Inc. v. Dental Brands for Less LLC, 2016 WL 868335 (S.D.N.Y. March 4, 2016); Dentsply International Inc. v. Dental Brands for Less LLC, 2016 WL 3676686 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2016); Dentsply International Inc. v. Dental Brands for Less LLC, 2016 WL 6310777 (S.D. N.Y. October 27, 2016).
Mr. Kalman's success, arising out of a two week long preliminary injunction trial
in which he defeated an attempt by his client's competitor to prevent his client
from using a form of advertising essential to the continuation of its business, was
sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. See J & M
Turner, Inc. v. Applied Bolting Technology Products, Inc., supra. This case was later
tried to a jury, and after a 4-week long trial, Mr. Kalman again defeated an attempt by
his client's competitor to find it to have falsely advertised. Indeed, Mr. Kalman
succeeded in not only convincing the jury that the competitor falsely advertised and
disparaged his client’s product, but also succeeded in obtaining from the jury an award in
excess of $1.3 million in compensatory damages for his client. See J & M Turner, Inc. v.
Applied Bolting Technology Products, Inc., 1998-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,059 (E.D. Pa.
1998), aff’d., 1999-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,458 (3d Cir. 1998).
Mr. Kalman also litigates opposition and cancellation proceedings before the United
States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. See, e.g., Metro Traffic Control, Inc. v.
Shadow Network, Inc. and CitiTraffic Corp., Cancellation No. 19,291 (Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board, 1995); Manpower International, Inc. v. Rosenbluth International,
Inc., Opposition No. 93,850 (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 1995). He as well
prosecuted and supervised the registration in the United States and throughout the World
of trademarks of clients involved in various professional, commercial and industrial
fields, including agriculture, apparel, chemical, children's party supplies, computer
software, dental material and appliances, food/beverage, furniture, health care, industrial
and environmental equipment, municipal authorities, multi-media communications and
marketing, pesticide, pharmaceutical, publishing, restaurants and travel/transportation.
Mr. Kalman also counsels clients on insurance coverage defense and indemnification
issues arising out of intellectual property disputes with their insurers and on their behalf
litigates such coverage disputes. See, e.g., Applied Bolting Technology Products, Inc. v.
United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 942 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D. Pa. 1996), aff’d.,
118 F.3d 1574 (3d Cir. 1997).
III. UNFAIR COMPETITION AND TRADE SECRET LITIGATION AND COUNSELING
Mr. Kalman counsels both employers and employees with regard to post-employment
non-competition, trade secret non-disclosure and customer non-solicitation agreements,
and represents employers and employees in disputes involving the enforcement of such
agreements and the utilization of trade secrets and other employer confidential
Mr. Kalman has defeated an attempt by an employer to prevent its former employees
from using an invention alleged to infringe on the former employer's registered United
States patent in a new venture technology company, and to stop the former employees
from continuing to use in the new venture their business skills and production know-how
which they acquired in their former employment. The litigation raised as well issues
involving false advertising, fraud in the procurement of a patent, monopolization and
attempted monopolization in the industrial fastener industry. In subsequent litigation
between the two companies, Mr. Kalman defeated an attempt to prevent the new venture
technology company from advertising that its product met certain industry standards.
See J & M Turner, Inc. v. Applied Bolting Technology, Inc., 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1737 (E.D.
Pa.), aff’d., 96 F.3d 1433 (3d Cir. 1996).
He successfully prosecuted for the new venture technology company claims for false
advertising, unfair competition, commercial disparagement, tortious interference with
contractual and prospective business relations and restraint of trade and monopolization.
Subsequent proceedings in this litigation are reported at 1997-2 CCH Trade Cases
¶71,857 (E.D. Pa. 1997), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1907, 1835, 5945 (E.D. Pa. 1997). The
insurance coverage aspect of the case is reported at 942 F.Supp. 1029 (E.D. Pa. 1996). A
4-week long jury trial of his client's claims concluded with the jury returning a verdict in
his client’s favor, awarding it approximately $1.3 million in compensatory damages. See 1998-1 CCH Trade Cases ¶72,059 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff’d., 1999-1 CCH Trade Cases
¶72,458 (3d Cir. 1998).
IV. SECURITIES AND CONTRACT LITIGATION AND PARTICIPATION IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE
Mr. Kalman has represented members of the national securities industry, including
national and regional stock brokerage firms, individual stock brokers, and securities
customers in litigation in the federal courts, in disputes before securities industry
arbitration panels and in proceedings brought by self-regulatory organizations the result
of investigations which they instituted against member firms and stock brokers of such
firms. See, e.g., In the Matter of the Arbitration between Claimants Dr. Irakli Glonti
and David Dateshidze and Respondents Lehman Brothers Inc. and RBC Dain Rauscher
Inc., Dispute Resolution Arbitration, No. 08-00405, in which he secured an award for
investors exceeding $1.5 million. He participates as well as an arbitrator in the federal
district court and common pleas court arbitration programs in Philadelphia.
Mr. Kalman obtained a directed verdict and dismissal of a $25 million claim arising from
an alleged breach of an exclusive distribution arrangement brought in federal district
court against a New England and Mid-Atlantic food brokerage organization, the Ken J.
Pezrow Corporation and its subsidiary companies. Later on behalf of this client, Mr.
Kalman prosecuted a claim for malicious prosecution and wrongful use of civil
proceedings against the law firm and its client that brought the initial lawsuit obtaining
the recovery of all the legal fees and costs his client spent opposing the initial lawsuit.
Mr. Kalman is also involved in disputes and the prosecution of contractual claims arising
out of intellectual property and merchandising licenses.