Benjamin J. Eichel

Ben is a member of the firm’s Business Litigation Group and focuses his practice on complex breach of contract litigation, contract interpretation disputes, arbitration, international matters and antitrust and unfair competition litigation. Ben litigates all types of breach of contract claims, with both domestic and international implications, including, but not limited to, commercial contract disputes, employee/employer disputes, shareholder or partnership agreements, vendor to vendor disputes, commercial landlord and tenant disputes, and disputes relating to the ownership of intellectual property.

In antitrust and unfair competition matters, Ben represents clients in litigation involving price-fixing, price discrimination, predatory pricing, monopolistic practices, group boycotts, and tying and exclusive deals, among other areas.

Ben represents clients in all aspects of litigation, from initial pleadings through appeals, in both state and federal courts, as well as representing clients in alternative dispute resolution procedures, including arbitration and mediation. Ben has represented clients before the American Arbitration Association, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, and the International Chamber of Commerce.

Ben has been active in pro bono matters involving civil rights litigation, as well as working with the nonprofit organization Women Against Abuse, representing clients in court seeking protection from domestic abuse.

Representative Experience

  • Successfully represented two German affiliates of a global leader in the semiconductor market in an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration seated in Paris under Belgian law concerning a joint research and development project. The dispute concerned the ownership of and utilization rights for important patents used in modern mobile device applications, and parallel patent infringement litigation in several countries.  Following a weeklong trial, the International Chamber of Commerce ruled that the joint research and development project provided access rights to the technology at issue.
  • Represented a large, multi-office medical practice in disputes against multiple partner physicians relating to a planned private equity buyout, which were resolved favorably for the practice.
  • Represented employees and their employer in a dispute over a non-compete agreement and breach of contract claims in arbitration against their former employer. The employees had been working on developing water purification technology using synthetic diamonds to create ozone as a cleaner.  Following a hearing on the non-compete claims and on the eve of a second hearing on the contract claims, the case settled with a favorable result.
  • Successfully prosecuted breach of contract claim on behalf of large real estate company against national hotel chain, leading to a favorable monetary settlement.
  • Represented an Italian biotech company in licensing and contract disputes with U.S. licensees.  The U.S. licensees claims in California and we successfully argued that any such claims needed to be resolved in arbitration in Switzerland.  The court agreed and the claims were dismissed.
  • Represented a large real estate company against its partner in a joint venture regarding the financing of that joint venture.  The case required multiple preliminary injunction hearings and eventually resolved through a settlement on favorable terms to the client.
  • Represented a shareholder against a fellow shareholder in a complex dispute regarding ownership of companies located in Dubai. The case involved legal actions in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, London and Dubai.  The case eventually settled with a favorable result for our client.
  • Represented a manufacturer of polyurethane foam in defense of a price fixing and customer allocation action brought by direct purchasers. After extensive discovery, the matter settled on favorable terms.
  • Represented a hospital system in an antitrust dispute with its largest competitor. After extensive discovery, the hospital system won a full defense judgment at summary judgment, which was affirmed on appeal to the 7th Circuit

Publications

  • State, Federal Courts Uniformity in Discovery Stays Remains Hazy After ‘Cyan,’ The Legal Intelligencer (June 2019)
  • When, Where and Whether: The Confusing Law of Third-Party Evidence, Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (April 2019)
  • Injunction Carve-Outs in Arbitration: Emergency Only, or All Equity Claims? Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (January 2018)

RELATED BLOG POSTS

Archer Signs On to the Mansfield Rule 3.0

Why divorcing couples are choosing alternative dispute resolution over litigation

54th Annual Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning