Sathya Gosselin is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC office, where he advises a diverse array of clients, helping each navigate complex litigation and achieve dispute resolution. Sathya takes a hands-on approach to litigation, working with a small team to secure favourable results at the trial and appellate levels and deliver outstanding client service.
His work in the arenas of antitrust, intellectual property, and sports and entertainment have earned him various awards and the recognition of his peers. Law360 named Sathya one of just five top lawyers under the age of 40 leading the class-action field, noting his “adept skill set,” “penchant for high-stakes litigation,” and “close attention to detail.” Legal 500 has likewise recommended Sathya for antitrust civil litigation, citing him as a “young star” who “works on the most complex cases brilliantly.”
Recent engagements include: Serving as trial counsel in the landmark O’Bannon v. NCAA litigation, in which Sathya examined and cross-examined witnesses at trial, deposed key NCAA executives, briefed complex constitutional issues advanced by the NCAA and television networks, and helped negotiate a $40 million settlement with Electronic Arts, Inc., which was distributed among current and former college athletes. Representing a leading software manufacturer in copyright-infringement litigation against the federal government.
Defending an apparel retailer against false intellectual-property infringement claims. Representing specialty-film exhibitors in various metropolitan markets who collectively allege a nationwide theater chain is abusing its national circuit power to coerce distributors into exclusive arrangements that harm competition. Serving as co-lead counsel to rail-freight shippers in a high-profile antitrust case concerning alleged fuel-surcharge collusion among the nation’s largest rail-freight carriers. Representing a corporate sponsor of track & field athletes in antitrust litigation against the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Track & Field. Negotiating a favourable settlement for a royalty-rights holder in the college athletics space.
Submitting an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of international human-rights scholars urging the Court to grant review as to whether customary international law excuses exhaustion of local remedies where a state accused of wrongdoing unduly delays the local remedial process.
Rate : $$$$