OUR PEOPLE
Our People
Our People

Thomas E. Zemaitis

Thomas E. Zemaitis is a partner in the Philadelphia office of Pepper Hamilton LLP. He concentrates his practice in all types of commercial litigation, with an emphasis on intellectual property, particularly trademark, copyright and false advertising matters and on antitrust and trade regulation matters. His experience also includes securities, trade secret, contract, tortious interference and product liability cases.

Mr. Zemaitis joined Pepper as an associate in the Litigation Department in the Philadelphia office in 1976, and he became a partner in 1984. He left the firm to serve as general attorney for major litigation with Bell Atlantic Corporation from January 1992 through June 1993, and returned to the firm as a litigation partner in July 1993. Within Pepper, Mr. Zemaitis is chair of the Professional Responsibility Committee and a member of the Compensation Committee. He has served as chair of the Associates Committee and the Hiring Committee and as a member of the Philadelphia Summer Associates Committee. He also has been the partner in charge of associate assignments in the Litigation Department, head of training for litigation associates and coordinator of pro bono activities.

The following engagements are representative of Mr. Zemaitis’ work in general commercial litigation:

  • Devon Park Bioventures, L.P. v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., Arbitration (represented private equity firm in action against limited partner that refused to make capital call and asserted that the general partner breached fiduciary duties to the limited partners; arbitration award entered granting full relief sought by Devon Park)
  • Zook v. SSL International, Inc., Arbitration (represented international distributor of foot care products in action by licensor of former subsidiary claiming that he was entitled to royalties on certain sales by SSL under the terms of the license agreement; arbitration award entered in favor of SSL finding no liability)
  • General Bearing Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and Delaware Chancery Court (represented publicly held manufacturing company in two actions challenging the company’s decision to withdraw its listing on NASDAQ; both actions dismissed voluntarily)
  • Gintowt v. TL Ventures, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (represented private equity firm in action by former owner of a portfolio company alleging RICO violations, breaches of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation; case settled favorably to client prior to trial)
  • Bell Atlantic Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Third Circuit Court of Appeals (represented Bell Atlantic (now Verizon) in class action alleging violations of the Securities Act in connection with a decline in the price of Bell Atlantic stock in January 1991; summary judgment granted in favor of client, affirmed on appeal)
  • Astea International v. QMS, Inc., Arbitration (represented enterprise software manufacturer in dispute with purchaser of Astea’s Dispatch-1 software system claiming fraud and breach of contract; arbitration award entered favorable to Astea entered)
  • BSG v. ARAMARK, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (represented ARAMARK in dispute with company that provided software and systems integration services which failed to perform as specified; case settled favorably to client during discovery)
  • Lockheed Martin v. Bell Atlantic Directory Graphics, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (represented directory graphics company in dispute regarding software development effort that failed to meet specifications; case settled favorably to client during discovery)
  • DataStudy v. DecisionOne Corp., U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (represented computer service and maintenance company in dispute regarding systems integration effort by vendor that failed to meet specifications; case settled favorably to client before trial)
  • Knott v. Logan Capital Management, Inc., Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (represented closely held corporation in action by shareholder/officer claiming wrongful discharge; case settled favorably before trial)
  • OfficeMax, Inc. v. Intelligent Electronics, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (represented computer products retailer in action for breach of contract and fraud by OfficeMax in connection with OfficeMax’s purchase of IE’s BizMart subsidiary; summary judgment granted for IE on all counts)
  • Potomac Yard Arbitration, (represented Conrail in arbitration to determine liability for environmental remediation costs under the Potomac Yard Agreement; arbitration award favorable to Conrail entered)
  • Tiber Holding Corporation Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Chester County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas (obtained favorable verdicts for majority shareholders in closely held family business in three cases: the first establishing the ownership of the corporation’s stock, the second against the corporation’s surety bond and the third to recover funds misappropriated by former officers).

The following engagements are representative of Mr. Zemaitis’ work in the antitrust and trade regulation field:

  • In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (representing Biovail, Inc. in antitrust class actions by direct and indirect purchasers alleging unlawful foreclosure of entry of generic competition for Wellbutrin XL; case is ongoing)
  • Delaware and Hudson Railway Co. v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, and Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (represented Conrail in separate actions charging monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act; completed all discovery and pretrial procedures; each case settled early in the trial)
  • Chlorine & Caustic Soda Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (represented Diamond Shamrock Corporation in actions alleging a conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against major producers of chlorine and caustic soda; completed all discovery and pretrial procedures; both actions settled before of trial)
  • Orson, Inc. v. Miramax Film Corp., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Third Circuit Court of Appeals (represented Miramax in action by local motion picture exhibitor charging antitrust violations and violation of the Pennsylvania Feature Motion Picture Fair Practices Act; obtained summary judgment on antitrust claim and favorable judgments at trial and on appeal on state law claims)
  • Beverage Enterprises, Inc., State courts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania (represented distributor of non-alcoholic beverages in actions brought by former distributors against our client and the manufacturers of branded soft drinks challenging manufacturers’ decision to change local distributors claiming violations of state law, including the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act; successfully defended against motions for preliminary injunction and achieved favorable settlements)
  • Narberth Theatre, Inc. v. Universal Pictures, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (represented Universal in action by local motion picture exhibitor claiming violation of the Pennsylvania Feature Motion Picture Fair Business Practices Act; case settled before trial)
  • Nautilus Plus of Oregon v. Gold’s Gym Franchising, Inc., Circuit Court for Multnomah County, Oregon (represented Gold’s Gym in dispute with franchisor over attempt to sell franchised outlets; case settled favorably at preliminary injunction stage)
  • Litigation to enforce covenants not to compete, various courts, including the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania (represented unrelated companies in more than ten separate actions to enforce covenants not to compete against former employees and provided advice regarding the enforceability of covenants not to compete to other clients; all litigation resulted in the issuance of preliminary injunctions or favorable settlements).

The following engagements are representative of Mr. Zemaitis’ work in the intellectual property field:

  • General Products, Inc. v. Varimpo, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (representing distributor of household products in action by competitor claiming patent infringement and trade dress infringement; matter pending)
  • Gallup, Inc. v. Kenexa Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (represented Kenexa in action by a competitor claiming copyright infringement, false advertising, unfair competition and tortious interference with employment contracts; case settled favorably immediately prior to trial)
  • N3 Oceanic, Inc. v. Shields, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (represented distributor of vitamin supplements and its chief spokesperson in action by competitor asserting Lanham Act violations, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition and tortious interference; judgment entered in favor of clients after trial)
  • Sternberg v. The Walt Disney Co., U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (represented Disney in action by author claiming copyright infringement with respect to the feature motion picture Finding Nemo; obtained agreement to voluntary dismissal due to improper venue)
  • Micrografx, Inc. v. Arcland, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (represented software developer in copyright infringement action claiming that software product it and marketed by Arcland infringed product distributed by a competitor; case settled favorably to client during discovery)
  • Mothers Work, Inc., false advertising claim (represented Mothers Work in false advertising claim by a major U.S. retailer; matter settled favorably without litigation)
  • Zeneca, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (represented Lilly in false advertising claim under the Lanham Act; case settled after entry of preliminary injunction)
  • TalentPlus, Inc. v. Talent Point, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (represented Talent Point in trademark infringement action; case settled during discovery)
  • Belly Basics v. Mothers Work, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (represented Mothers Work in trade dress infringement case under Lanham Act; case settled during discovery)
  • Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Dorney Park Coaster Co., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (obtained preliminary injunction on behalf of Paramount against manufacture of amusement ride infringing Paramount’s “Top Gun” trademarks; matter favorably settled after issuance of preliminary injunction)
  • Narberth Theater, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures Corp., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (represented Paramount in action by local motion picture exhibitor claiming violation of the Pennsylvania Feature Motion Picture Fair Practices Act; plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction denied; case favorably settled before trial)
  • Anticounterfeiting enforcement litigation, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (represented, in a series of cases, members of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America in actions to seize counterfeit videotapes and audiotapes sold or rented in stores and by street vendors; obtained temporary seizure orders and worked with U.S. marshals to confiscate counterfeit goods)
  • Louis Vuitton v. White, Third Circuit Court of Appeals (represented Louis Vuitton in action against street vendors selling counterfeit Vuitton luggage; Court of Appeals reversed District Court’s denial of Vuitton’s application for a seizure order under the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984).


Education
B.A. 1973, magna cum laude, University of Pennsylvania
J.D. 1976, magna cum laude, University of Pennsylvania Law School; editor, Law Review; Order of the Coif


Bar Admissions
Admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New York


Copyright © 2014 Pepper Hamilton LLP | Use of This Site Subject to These Terms & Conditions | PRIVACY POLICY | Contact Us: phinfo@pepperlaw.com or 866.737.7372 | Find Pepper Hamilton LLP on Facebook | Pepper Hamilton LLP on LinkedIn | Follow Pepper Hamilton LLP on Twitter | Pepper Hamilton LLP YouTube Channel | View Pepper Hamilton LLP's documents on JD Supra