Russell Hayman represents companies in the technology, health, life sciences and in other sectors in complex civil litigation nationwide. Drawing on his background as a federal prosecutor, he has also represented companies in government investigations and criminal proceedings. A successful trial lawyer having taken over 25 cases to trial, Russell has successfully defended clients in complex federal antitrust, patent infringement and theft of trade secret cases involving acoustic, cellular, Wi-Fi, software, mobile app, semiconductor and memory technologies. Russell’s trial experience in antitrust matters includes both horizontal and vertical restraint claims.
For healthcare providers, Russell has handled complex civil as well as criminal fraud matters for providers of pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices as well as hospital, home health, hospice and skilled nursing facility (SNF) services, including alleged violations of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act and matters arising under the Stark law.
Previously, Russell served as a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles and as a senior official of the US Justice Department in Washington, DC. As a federal prosecutor, he tried the first espionage case ever brought by the US against an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (US v. Richard W. Miller). Additionally, Russell served as a deputy chief of the Criminal Division of the US Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, California.
Served as lead trial counsel in a federal antitrust case involving Sherman 1, Sherman 2 and Clayton Act antitrust claims; the jury deliberated for approximately an hour before returning a defense verdict in favor of the Firm’s client (GN Netcom Inc. v. Plantronics Inc., Del., 2017)
Served as lead trial counsel in a patent infringement action related to two-way wireless communications over cellular and Wi-Fi networks; the jury returned a verdict of no infringement, a complete victory for the Firm’s client (Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. BlackBerry Corp., N.D. Tex., 2016)
Served as lead trial counsel in a federal jury trial involving multiple counts of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, incorrect inventorship, trademark infringement and false advertising under the Lanham Act; following a three-week trial, the jury found that the Firm’s client did not breach any contract, did not misappropriate trade secrets, and retained sole inventorship of the patents at stake; rather than awarding the plaintiff $6.5 million sought in damages, the jury awarded nominal damages of $2 on the Lanham Act claims, and the trial court dissolved a preliminary injunction issued before trial (Netlist, Inc. v. Diablo Technologies, Inc., N.D. Ca., 2015)
Served as lead trial counsel in a patent infringement action involving three patents related to smartphones; after deliberating for less than four hours, the jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of the Firm’s client on patent infringement and invalidity (NXP B.V. v. BlackBerry Limited et al., M.D. Fla., 2014)
Served as lead trial counsel in a patent infringement action involving several patents related to wireless communications technologies, where the defendant contended that the plaintiff did not have lawful ownership of the patents-in-suit and therefore had no standing to proceed with the lawsuit; in the third week of trial, McDermott obtained a dismissal of the action for the Firm’s client (Innovative Sonic Limited v. Research in Motion Ltd. et al., N.D. Tex., 2013)
Do not send any information or documents that you want to have treated as secret or confidential. Providing information to McDermott via email links on this website or other introductory email communications will not create an attorney-client relationship; will not preclude McDermott from representing any other person or firm in any matter; and will not obligate McDermott to keep confidential the information you provide. McDermott cannot enter into an attorney-client relationship with you until McDermott has determined that doing so will not create a conflict of interest and until you and McDermott have entered into a written agreement or engagement letter that sets forth the terms of our relationship.