Amina S.
Dammann

Amina Dammann’s experience includes the following matters:

Represented German car manufacturer in environmental enforcement action before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board;

Represented German car manufacturer in litigation and governmental investigations regarding disputes over diesel emissions standards;

Represented New General Motors in litigation relating to ignition switch;

S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. v. ATI Technologies ULC, et al.  Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd., et al. Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;

Represented Chevron in litigation arising out of an explosion at a refinery;

Represented oil refinery owner in arbitration dispute arising out of a refinery construction project in Colombia;

Represented global wind farm developer in arbitration dispute arising out of a long-term turbine service agreement;

Keranos, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al. Representation of Microchip and other defendants in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, filed in the Eastern District of Texas;

Microchip Technology Inc. et al. v. United Module Corp. et al.(and related cases).  Representation of Microchip, Silicon Storage Technology and other declaratory judgment plaintiffs in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, pending in the Eastern District of Texas;

Occidental Chemical Corporation v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.: Representation of Occidental in litigation to assert rights of qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana;

JD Wind et al. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas et al.: Representation of Occidental in state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rate that must be paid to wind-generating facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and implementing regulations, filed in Texas state and federal courts.

Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Representation of Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.

AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture et al. v. CEMEX Construction Material Florida, LLC: Representation of CEMEX in a lawsuit concerning a plant construction with multi-million dollar cost overrun and construction delays, filed in Florida state court (Business Court Division).

King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Representation of patent holder in a paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.

Pennfield Oil Company d/b/a Pennfield Animal Health v. Alpharma Inc.: Representation of Alpharma in a false advertising action arising from Alpharma advertisements that report the results of pharmaceutical research studies, filed in the District of Nebraska.

Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Representation of Alpharma in a lawsuit regarding the breach of a trademark license agreement and the infringement of Alpharma’s trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.