October 4, 2022

Volume XII, Number 277

Dana B. Parker

Dana Parker, counsel in K&L Gates’ Newark office, concentrates her practice on complex commercial litigation, environmental and insurance coverage litigation.

Dana currently represents a prior owner of a manufacturing plant in Edgewater, New Jersey in a case brought by the Borough of Edgewater seeking remediation costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, the New Jersey Spill Act and others. The Borough of Edgewater alleges that the subsequent owner of the manufacturing plant dumped contaminated material (which originated from the plant) on a public park in Edgewater, New Jersey.

She also has represented a health care company in E&O insurance coverage litigation and arbitration arising from underlying antitrust claims. She has also litigated and counseled clients in disputes regarding insurance coverage for construction defects and construction-related bodily injury, among others. Dana also has experience securing coverage for clients as additional insureds on policies issued to other entities. She has assisted many clients with tendering coverage claims and coordinating the claims process, and has obtained coverage in many instances without resorting to litigation.

Dana’s commercial litigation experience includes LLC shareholder disputes, fraud and civil RICO claims: trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, trade libel and disparagement, licensing litigation involving the Digital Millennium Copyright and Lanham Acts, antitrust (Sherman Act) and lost profits.

In the area of antitrust, Dana was part of a trial team in a groundbreaking antitrust jury verdict for Continuant, Inc./Telecom Labs, Inc. (TLI), an independent provider of maintenance services for telephone equipment, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Following a six-and-a-half month trial, a New Jersey federal jury returned a $20 million antitrust verdict (which will be automatically trebled to $60 million) in favor of the client (Avaya Inc. v. Telecom Labs Inc. et al.). The case was the first antitrust claim of its type (single product aftermarket) to make it to trial and to a successful verdict since the plaintiffs in Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services tried their case to verdict in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s first recognizing this type of claim in 1992. Eastman Kodak Company v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992).

Articles in the National Law Review database by Dana B. Parker