TEL: 202.218.0007
FAX: 202.218.0020

Email | Download vCard

Washington, D.C.
1300 I Street, N.W.
11th Floor East
Washington, DC 20005

Practices
Industries

Roy Goldberg

Print PDF

Partner  

Mr. Goldberg is a partner in the Business Trial Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, and is the head of the Firm’s aviation industry team.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Goldberg is a trial and appellate lawyer with extensive experience since 1989 in commercial and regulatory litigation before federal and state courts, government agencies and domestic and international arbitration panels.  Substantive areas of litigation include antitrust, aviation matters, commercial contract disputes, international arbitration, government contract bid protests, patent and trademark litigation, challenges to government user fees and rules and regulations, and antidumping disputes and other international trade matters. 

Education

  • J.D., University of Colorado, 1987
  • B.A., University of Kansas, 1984

Clerkships

  • Law Clerk to The Honorable Jim R. Carrigan, U.S. District Court for District of Colorado

Admissions

  • D.C.
  • Maryland
  • Colorado
  • U.S. District Court for District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court for District of Maryland
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit
  • U.S. Court of International Trade
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Antitrust Matters

Mr. Goldberg has represented airlines in connection with allegations of price signaling and price fixing, and has represented a major telecommunications company on antitrust issues.  Mr. Goldberg also has represented entities on issues relating to anticompetitive conduct in the financial services industry.  Mr. Goldberg has counseled various companies and trade associations on a variety of antitrust issues.

Aviation Law Matters

A mainstay of Mr. Goldberg’s aviation practice is his more than sixteen years of experience representing airlines and their trade associations in administrative proceedings and federal and state court cases challenging user fees and other charges imposed by national and local governments and airport authorities.

In 2007, Mr. Goldberg served as lead trial counsel for seven U.S. airlines challenging millions of dollars in new airport terminal charges at Los Angeles International Airport. The U.S. Department of Transportation, on June 15, 2007, ruled that the new charges unjustly discriminated against the air carriers and ordered the airport to refund all of the unlawful fees. Alaska Airlines, Inc. et al. v. Los Angeles World Airports, et al., Docket No. OST-2007-27331 (“LAX III”), Final Decision, Order 2007-6-8 (available at http://dms.dot.gov). The ruling sets important legal precedent, provides critical protections to air carriers against unjust discrimination by airports, and should result in more than 100 million dollars in refunds and cost savings to the affected airlines at LAX. The case is highlighted in “A Tale of Two Airports: Why DOT Found Unjust Discrimination Against Airlines at LAX But Not at Newark,” Issues in Aviation Law and Policy ¶ 20,431 (October 2007). 

Mr. Goldberg also represented the same seven U.S. Airlines in the multiple challenges to the DOT LAX III decision filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  In August 2009, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision, affirming important aspects of the DOT decision and remanding other issues to the agency.  Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. DOT, 575 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 2009).  Among other things, the Court agreed with the complainant airlines that DOT had improperly failed to explain why LAX could use fair market value to set terminal charges but not airfield fees.  The Court also agreed with the airlines that LAX’s monopoly power was relevant to the issue of whether LAX’s terminal charges were lawful.

Mr. Goldberg represented several airlines in a D.C. Circuit Court challenge to the imposition by the U.S. Transportation and Security Administration of hundreds of millions of dollars in additional “Aviation Security Infrastructure Fees” (“ASIF”) for screening passengers and property at U.S. airports.  In February 2009, the Court held that the fee increase was unlawful because the TSA improperly included the cost of screening non-passengers in its calculations for the cost increase.  Southwest Airlines Co. v. Transportation Security Admin., 554 F.3d 1065 (D.C. Cir. 2009).  (The matter is now on remand before the TSA.)

Mr. Goldberg represented the Air Transport Association and several major airlines in administrative litigation before the DOT and in federal court litigation challenging landing fee surcharges imposed by a local governmental entity (Tinicum Township) at Philadelphia International Airport.  In March 2008, the DOT granted the ATA’s petition for an order declaring that the landing fees violate the Anti-Head Tax Act because the township does not own or operate the airport.  Mr. Goldberg also represented ATA as an intervenor in the township’s appeal of the DOT decision, and in September 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied the township’s appeal.  Township of Tinicum v. DOT, 582 F.3d 482    (3rd Cir. 2009).

Mr. Goldberg has defended major U.S. airlines in class actions alleging that the carriers improperly collected Mexican tourist taxes from exempt passengers.  In January 2010 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling of a federal court in San Francisco which had dismissed the class action complaint challenging improper collection of the tax.  McMullen v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2010 WL  55526 (January 5, 2010).

In 2009, Mr. Goldberg successfully represented a major Latin American airline sued in a class action for allegedly failing to comply with requirements for notifying passengers of their rights after being involuntarily denied boarding.

On multiple occasions Mr. Goldberg successfully pursued cases on behalf of a coalition of international airlines that challenged air traffic control user fees imposed by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration on flights that do not take off or land in the U.S. (“overflights”).  E.g., Air Transport Association of Canada v. FAA, 323 F.3d 1093(D.C. Cir. April 8, 2003). These cases resulted in refunds of several millions of dollars plus cost savings in the hundreds of millions of dollars for the international aviation community.  He also played an important role in successfully challenging the same type of user fees in 1998. Asiana Airlines v. FAA, 134 F.3d 393(D.C. Cir. 1998).  The experience with these cases is detailed in the Spring 2006 edition of the Journal of Air Law and Commerce in an article entitled “Will it Happen Again? — FAA’s Disastrous Prior Experience with User Fees.”

In 2009, Mr. Goldberg represented the National Airline Council of Canada in negotiations with the FAA over FAA’s plans to increase the overflight fees.

In 2006 and 2009, Mr. Goldberg represented the Air Transport Association of Canada in challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s attempt to increase the fees charged for inspection of aircraft entering the United States for compliance with the U.S. laws regarding agricultural products.

Mr. Goldberg represented an airline challenging passenger facility charges imposed by the airports in Minneapolis-St. Paul and Memphis.  Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. FAA, 14 F.3d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Commercial Law Disputes

Mr. Goldberg obtained a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the summary judgment entered the prior year on behalf of a major seller of telecommunications equipment against a former salesperson seeking $12 million in additional sales commissions.   Rahrig v. Alcatel USA Marketing, Inc. 217 Fed. Appx. 189 (4th Cir. 2006). 

In 2006, Mr. Goldberg led a trial team that obtained a jury verdict finding that the defendant managing general partners of a limited partnership had breached the fiduciary duties owed to the firm’s client.  The verdict was affirmed on appeal.   Alloy v. Wills Family Trust¸ 944 A.2d 1234 (Md. App. 2008). 

Mr. Goldberg successfully defended a summary judgment obtained on behalf of a major financial services company in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit filed by a borrower who claimed that the financial services company had engaged in a fraud on the court.  Asterbadi v. CIT, 176 Fed. Appx. 426 (4th Cir. 2006).

Successful representation of major landowner in District of Columbia in eminent domain litigation relating to Washington Nationals Baseball Stadium.

Government Contracts Disputes

Mr. Goldberg has successfully handled more than two dozen bid protests on behalf of protesters and intervenors involving contracts for U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Mint, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and contract disputes involving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Mint. 

Intellectual Property Matters

Representation of plaintiffs and defendants in disputes involving claims for patent infringement, trademark or copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets; extensive counseling in these areas; also represent trademark applicants in matters before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Mr. Goldberg was successful in obtaining the dismissal of a patent infringement suit against a major international airline, without the airline having to pay a single dollar in damages, and with most of the legal fees paid by a third party under an indemnification agreement. He obtained dismissal of a similar patent infringement lawsuit against the same airline the previous year. In 2008, Mr. Goldberg obtained a preliminary injunction for pharmaceutical company alleging patent infringement against competitor.  Everett Laboratories, Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., 573 F.Supp.2d 855 (D.N.J. 2008).  Mr. Goldberg argued the appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2009 (before the case settled).  Successful representation of trademark owners in disputes before the World Intellectual Property Organization to obtain Internet domain names; and representation of companies in contract and tort disputes relating to telecommunications and computer software and equipment and systems integration matters.

International Arbitration

Mr. Goldberg has extensive experience representing U.S. and foreign companies in arbitrations before the International Chamber of Commerce (London and Spain) and the American Arbitration Association (New York, New Jersey and Maryland).  Experience includes the successful representation of a Chinese metallurgical coke seller in a week-long arbitration before the ICC in London over the breach of a sales contract by a U.S. subsidiary of a German trading company, and the successful representation of an environmental services company suing a former client for breach of contract in an AAA arbitration in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

International Trade Disputes

Mr. Goldberg has represented petitioners and industry intervenors in several antidumping cases before the U.S. Commerce Department and International Trade Commission, and has appeared numerous times before the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on antidumping and customs fraud litigation matters.  He also has represented importers whose goods were seized by Customs and has counseled importers and customs brokers on a wide range of import related issues.  Mr. Goldberg also counsels companies on export control matters. 

Antidumping Cases

Represented petitioner U.S. producer of metal calendar slides in antidumping case against metal calendar slides from Japan before the ITC and Commerce Department.

Represented petitioner U.S. nepheline syenite manufacturer in antidumping case against nepheline syenite from Canada before the ITC, Commerce Department, Court of International Trade and U.S.-Canada trade dispute panel.

Represented petitioner U.S. office supply company in antidumping case against paper clips from China before the ITC and Commerce Department.

Represented U.S. wire producers' association in antidumping case against carbon steel imports from various countries before the ITC.

Represented respondent Finnish producer of cut to length steel in antidumping case before the Court of International Trade and Federal Circuit.

Represented respondent Spanish producer of cut to length steel in antidumping case before the Court of International Trade and Federal Circuit.

Represented respondent Brazilian producer of silicon magnesium in administrative review involving imports from Brazil before the Commerce Department.

Customs Matters

Represented importer of jewelry from Taiwan in customs fraud litigation before the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Represented U.S. importer of computer chips which were seized by U.S. Customs for allegedly being "counterfeit" in efforts to obtain return of seized goods.

Represented major Italian manufacturer of furniture in broad range of Customs matters relating to entry of goods into the United States.

Obtained classification rulings from U.S. Customs Service with regard to imported items on behalf of major U.S. greeting card company.

Representation of freight forwarders employing Customs brokers on broker licensing issues.

Advice and counseling to import companies on valuation and classification issues.

Section 337 Matters before the ITC

Representation of inventors and other witnesses before U.S. International Trade Commission in patent 337 cases.

Representation of sunglass manufacturer in litigation involving alleged infringement of trade dress protection of competitor.

Articles

  • "Will it Happen Again? -- FAA's Disastrous Prior Experience with User Fees." Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Spring 2006
  • "A Safety Net for the Internet", Lead Author
  • "What To Do When Local Governments Unfairly Block Development Projects," Legal Times, April, 2005
  • "Intellectual Property Issues Arising with B2B Exchanges", Chapter in Aspen Treatise, 2002
  • "When Unimportant Is Interesting: The Negligible Import Exception to Cumulation in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations", 25 Geo. Wash. J. Int'l L. & Econ. 721, 721-36, 1992
  • "The First Thing We Do a/k/a Shakespeare and the Law (of Government Contracts)", The Clause, Board of Contract Appeals Bar Association, Spring 2002

Interviews

Speeches

  • "U.S. Antidumping Laws and Their Impact on Chinese Manufacturers and Exporters," China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, November 16, 2009
  • "Airline Challenges to Airport Abuses of Economic Power," 2007 International Air Transport Association Legal Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey, 2007
  • "ATC and Airport Privatisation" (Breakout Session), The Airline Industry's Next 100 Years: New Destination With New Maps – International Air Transport Association Legal Symposium, Singapore, February 2003
  • "How Airlines Can Protect Themselves Against Cyber-Attacks", Legal Advisory Council of the International Air Transport Association, Montreal, September 2001

Events

 
Disclaimer | Site Map | Attorney Advertising | Site by Firmseek | © 2010 Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP