Les Weinstein serves as a mediator and arbitrator, with a focus on technology, internet, competition law and intellectual property disputes.  He has degrees in law ( J.D. and LL.M) and engineering and is a USPTO registered patent lawyer.  He is listed annually as among “The Best Lawyers in the United States” and as a “Super Lawyer” in both arbitration and mediation.  Mr. Weinstein is also a panel member of the following ADR sponsoring organizations: AAA/ICDR, CPR, CIAdr, WIPO and IAA.

EXPERIENCE AND SPECIALTIES

Mr. Weinstein is an attorney, mediator and arbitrator, with over 40 years of extensive litigation, counseling and ADR experience in patents, copyrights, trademarks, unfair competition, technology licensing, antitrust, business and commercial matters, trade regulation, international trade and real estate. 

As a lawyer, he represented in litigation and advised domestic and multinational companies regarding patent and licensing disputes, including the formation of technology joint ventures.  He frequently lectures on the topics of antitrust, trade regulation, litigation, patent law and ADR law.  Under the auspices of the Austrian Center for International Legal Studies (CILS), he in 2011 taught arbitration, mediation and intellectual property law in Tirana, Albania.

GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE

United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.:  Appointed as the first USPTO registered patent lawyer to join the Antitrust Division under the Attorney General's Honor Program.  Served five years with the Antitrust Division, trying civil and criminal antitrust cases.  He also handled criminal grand jury investigations, appellate and legislative matters. Mr. Weinstein also served as a policy advisor to the Assistant Attorney General for patent matters, and was instrumental in the formation of the Patent Section of the Antitrust Division.  He conceived and drafted a statute regarding patent interference settlement agreements which President Kennedy requested in his legislative agenda to Congress and which was enacted as 35 USC §135(c).  He also assisted in the preparation of the Government’s successful amicus briefs in the Stiffel v. Compco, and Daybright v. Sears Supreme Court cases.

USDOJ-Antitrust Division: Responsible for cases in the pharmaceutical, chemical, automotive and electronics industries, including United States v. Ely Lilly, et al., United States v. General Motors and companion civil action in the Supreme Court in United States v. General Motors; and U.S. v. Singer Manufacturing Company (trial and appeal). Principal attorney in United States v. Monsanto and Farbenfabriken Bayer (MOBAY), the first successful government antitrust case challenging technology joint ventures as being anti-competitive.

United States Patent and Trademark Office: Patent Examiner (electro-mechanical servo system art).

PRIVATE PRACTICE:

Retired partner, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey.   Private law practice focused on antitrust, intellectual property and other complex commercial disputes, with extensive litigation and trial experience in patent, unfair competition and antitrust cases, class actions in the state and federal courts, ITC and federal MDL cases.  He also defended a major product liability case (e.g., In re Agent Orange) and was the primary lawyer in significant real estate fraud cases brought by California financial institutions.  

Cases in which he had hands on and/or supervisory responsibility include: Genentech, Inc. v. Centocor, Inc., U.S.D.C. (N.D. Ca.), Case No. 98-01046CW [See Centocor Biotech Inc.] IMS Technology, Inc. v. Okuma America Corp., U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ill.), Case No. 95-C-5779; Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v. IMS Technology, Inc., U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ill.), Case No. 96-C-499; Hoover Universal Inc. v. Graham Packaging Corp. (C.D. Ca.), Case No. 95-3331 (KMW) and 95-8706 (KMW); IMS Technology, Inc. v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., U.S.D.C. (E.D. Ill.), Case No. 96-C-3002; IMS Technology, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, U.S.D.C. (E.D. Va.), Case No. 96-206A; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v. Jerome H. Lemelson, U.S.D.C., Central District Case No. SACV93-142-LHM (RWRx); Go Video v. Akai, (U.S.D.C., Arizona).

Mr. Weinstein conceived of and was instrumental in bringing one of the first RICO cases - and the first one of significance – challenging the abuse of patents in a patent licensing and enforcement program (Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v. Lemelson, (D.Nev.).

He represented a variety of domestic and international clients, including Idemitsu Petroleum (Japan), Radius Inc., Centocor Inc., General Scanning, Inc., Honda Motors (Japan), Honda Motors (America), Mitsubishi Electronics America, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (Japan), Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. (Japan), Panasonic. Sylvania Electric Meal Inc. (Taiwan) and numerous financial institutions.  This work spanned antitrust and intellectual property advice and counseling, litigation, arbitration, joint venture formation, real estate, licensing, consumer rights and class actions.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

Experience in major litigation, trial and/or appellate matters includes:

U.S. v. General Motors, (criminal antitrust)
U.S. v. Eli Lilly, et al., (criminal antitrust)
U.S. v. Singer Mfg. Co., (civil patent/antitrust)
Goldman v. Glendale Federal (Consumer Class Action – Lending Practices)
Home Savings v. Superior Court (Home I) (Consumer Class Action/Constitutional law)
Home Savings v. Superior Court (Home II) (Consumer Class Action/Constitutional law)
Glendale Federal v. Marina View (fraud, contract, commercial real estate)
Laks v. Coast Federal (civil, commercial real estate)
Richards v. Home Savings (contract, fraud)
Go-Video v. AKAI Electric (antitrust/patent)
Sunkist v. RJR Nabisco (arbitration, contract)
Cornwell v. CTS (antitrust)
Security Title vs. Great Western S&L (antitrust, insurance)
Van der Ahe v. Sylvania (antitrust)
W.T. Thompson v. GNC (antitrust)
Davis v. Hawthorne Financial (fraud)
Turturicci v. Miller Brewing Co. (antitrust)
CIT v. Galen (contract)
In re Beef, (MDL) (antitrust)
In re Master Key, (MDL) (antitrust)
Wang v. Mitsubishi Electric (patent, antitrust)
Mitsubishi Electric vs. Ampex (patent, antitrust, unfair competition)
Ampex vs. Mitsubishi Electric (patent)
Tandem Computer (ITC, patent)
National Semiconductor (ITC, patent)
Wang Technology (ITC, patent)
Idemitsu Petroleum vs. Chevron Oil (arbitration, contract)
Twitchell vs. US et al. (USDC, copyright)
Prosecutor in three grand jury criminal investigations while at the DOJ.
Defense counsel in five federal grand jury criminal investigations.

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Weinstein, “The Future of Corporate Disputes” (2012, Acquisition International Journal)
Weinstein, "The Application of Section 7 of the Clayton Act to Patents," George Washington University Patent, Copyright and Trademark Journal
Weinstein & Smith, "Going on the Offensive: Countering the Pro-Patent Trend in Patent Litigation," The General Counsel Advisor, Vol. 2, No. I (Spring 1994)
Panelist: American Bar Association, Litigation Section, Application of general litigation and antitrust principles in patent cases .
Lecturer: Korean Invention Promotion Association (KIPA), Soul, Korea (1997)
Lecturer: Korean Intellectual Property Association, Seoul, Korea, The Patent-Antitrust Interface: Risks and Opportunities .
Guest Lecturer: Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois: Cross-Cultural Negotiations .
Panelist: American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Committee of the Antitrust Section, Recent developments in CAFC decisions as they relate to antitrust and unfair competition issues in patent cases .
DecisionQuest: featured trial lawyer, American Lawyer and National Law Journal (
Featured Speaker: Meeting of the Chinese (PRC) Bar Association, Plenary Meeting, on the topic of China, the WTO, International Trade and U.S. Antitrust law Enforcement (Beijing, China)
Lecturer: Patent law and competition, The John Hopkins University Department of Economics.
Presenter and Member of the Advisory Committee of the PricewaterhouseCoopers Leadership Conferences (2000-2004) on Intellectual Property and other Complex litigation

AFFILIATIONS AND MEMBERSHIPS

American Bar Association, Antitrust, Litigation and Intellectual Property Sections
Los Angeles County and California Bar Associations (Antitrust, International Law, Intellectual Property Sections)
American Arbitration Association, Member, National Panel Member
Member, University of Pennsylvania President’s Council and Harrison Society
Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra (Director, Emeritus)
Los Angeles County Art Museum (Founder)
Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (Founder)

EDUCATION

B.S., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Engineering)
J.D., George Washington University Law Center, Washington, D.C. (with Distinction)
LL.M., George Washington University Law Center, Washington, D.C. (Antitrust, Trade Regulation and Intellectual Property)
Completed advanced ADR Course: “Mediating the Litigated Case,” Pepperdine Law
School, sponsored by the United States District Court. Completed numerous ADR courses sponsored by the AAA and CPR

ADR SPECIALTIES

Intellectual Property
Patent law
Copyright Law
Trademark Law
Trade Secret Law
Real Estate
Special Master/Discovery Referee
Technology Law
Business/Commercial
Class Actions
Complex Litigation

TAKING a case before a jury is risky and a new business has sprung up designed to eliminate some of that risk. Using a blend of marketing techniques and applied social sciences, several jury research companies say they can tell a lawyer how a jury is likely to respond to his case - and how to improve that response.

Although some lawyers do not believe this, and others worry that it smacks of manipulating the judicial system, jury research is booming. The two leaders in business cases are Litigation Sciences Inc., in Los Angeles, and Leo Shapiro & Associates, in Chicago. A third group, the National Jury Project, which traditionally focused on civil rights and criminal cases, has recently broadened its scope.

Donald Vinson, the head of Litigation Sciences, got into the business five years ago, when the attorney defending the International Business Machines Corporation in a $300 million antitrust suit asked him to recruit a ''shadow jury'' of six people, demographically similar to the real jury, to sit in the courtroom each day and report their impressions of the evidence each night.

I.B.M. won the case, and Mr. Vinson left his job as chairman of the marketing department at the University of Southern California to become a full-time litigation consultant.

Leo Shapiro, a market researcher, also got into jury research through an antitrust case, when the MCI Communications Corporation sued the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.

Instead of a contemporaneous shadow jury, Mr. Shapiro arranged rehearsals with mock jurors a month before the actual trial began. Lawyers from the firm representing MCI briefly presented both sides of the case, and then watched through a one-way mirror as the ''jurors'' deliberated. When the suit got to the real jury, MCI won.

While litigation has to be, as Mr. Vinson put it, ''megabucks'' to make his firm's $50- to $150-an-hour rates worthwhile, the field is expanding.

Philip Corboy, a Chicago personal injury lawyer who paid Mr. Shapiro $21,000 to profile the best jurors for a case involving a high school cheerleader paralyzed in a car crash, is now considering jury research for a variety of cases.

''It's just one more tool to get the information to pick the right jurors,'' he said. ''I think, in the next few years, the more imaginative lawyers who can afford to put out the money will be making a lot more use of it. Corporate cases are probably the biggest growth area, because the money's there.''

Jury researchers are usually asked three sorts of questions: what will the jury see as the basic problem in the case; what kind of juror is most easily persuadable to the client's view of that problem, and how should the client's argument be put across to the jury?

To get answers, researchers have done everything from helping lawyers change speaking styles or simplify technical material to polling the community about whether a corporation has such a bad image that a change of venue is in order. Or, as in Mr. Corboy's case, the researcher could ask people questions about a parallel situation.

Some lawyers think this type of research has no place in the courtroom. Many find the concept distasteful, while others argue that the statistical research is not valid for a group as small as a jury.

Others, including Hans Zeisel, a Chicago law school professor and jury research expert who consulted on Mr. Corboy's case, are more troubled by the possibility that jury research might favor one party.

''I hate things that benefit the richer side,'' he said. ''One side obtains an advantage over the other. If this thing gets out of hand, the courts might begin to say that you have to disclose whatever you have learned to the other side.''

Mr. Vinson's retort: ''There's already an imbalance in the system. Not all lawyers are equal, either.''

Les Weinstein, a Los Angeles lawyer whose firm is a repeat client of Litigation Sciences, says that, if jury research had to be disclosed, many lawyers would probably be reluctant to use it. ''People worry that it might create an image problem,'' he said. ''In a New York State case, Don Vinson went out to every juror's home and looked at theirlawns and their bumper stickers, and so on. It smacks of magic, of brain control, but that's what marketers do all the time.''

Mr. Shapiro seems resigned to these problems. ''Everyone comes away from this feeling dirty and manipulative,'' he said. ''But we do have an adversary system. If everyone has the right to the best representation possible, this is part of it.''

Harry Rubin Obituary:

RUBIN, Harry Born in New York, September 29, 1913, Harry died in Santa Monica, June 8, 2008. Harry was the husband of the late Sophie Rubin. He will be missed by his daughter Karen Weinstein, grandsons Eric and Bret Weinstein, four great-grandchildren: Naila, Zachary, Zev, and Toby, and his son-in-law Les Weinstein. Beyond family, Harry is survived by the many other people whose lives he touched and whose eyes he opened. During retirement from his career as a chemist Harry became an enthusiastic member of the Plato Society at UCLA. From his passion for intergenerational learning he created the Honors Student Program within Plato inviting UCLA honor students to participate in the Plato Study Discussion Group/seminars. First greeted as a "Mickey" by the young students, the program has flourished and become a student favorite. They uniformly describe the seminar/discussion groups as rich, intellectual experiences. His greatest pleasure in life was to open the eyes and broaden the thinking of as many young people as he could reach. He continued to inspire through his 94th year.

Harry's grandsons, Eric and Bret who pursued graduate studies in Mathematics and Biology, consider him to be a major influence leading them to their scientific interests and questioning. Eric dedicated his doctoral thesis in mathematics to his grandfather. From his days as an undergraduate at UCLA - and often at great personal cost - Harry never held back an opinion or ceased to question the establishment or the status quo. He stood true to his beliefs in free speech, and a utopian world in which education would unlock possibilities for all, banish economic disparities, and war would become obsolete, only to appear in history books. The question he considered seminal was "what does it mean to be human?" Ultimately he summed it up with a single phrase, "to be compassionate." [...]