Scholarly Lectures and Writings: September 11, 2008, "Litigation Skills - Trial & Post-Trial," Law Bulletin Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois (panelist on civility in litigation). June 27, 2008, "Eleven Lessons Learned in Trade Secrets Trials," GE Global IP Conference, Orlando, Florida.May 18, 2007, "The Meaning of KSR," IPLAC and The John Marshall Law School, Chicago, Illinois (panelist and speaker).September 27, 2006, "Recent Cases and Future Implications," Pharmaceutical & Biotech Patent Strategies (presented by IQPC), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.June 16, 2006, " Illinois Tool Works and Tying Arrangements - The IP Perspective," Law Seminars International Conference Corporate Law for Intellectual Property Lawyers, Atlanta, Georgia. April 27, 2006, "Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago Mini-Conference on Willfulness in Patent Litigation," IPLAC, Chicago, Illinois (Chair and Panelist). February 17, 2006, "The Problem of Universals and the Implications for Claim Construction," Law Seminars International Conference on Patent Claim Construction, Chicago, Illinois.November 29, 2005, "Plato, Nominalism and Patents," Practicing Law Institute Workshop on Patent Litigation, Chicago, Illinois.September 30, 2005, "Claim Construction after Phillips v. AWH," Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois (Panelist).October, 2004, "Trying the Issue of Willful Infringement to a Jury," Association of Patent Law Firms Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois (National Audiocast).January 22, 2004, "Claim Construction: The Role of Claim Language vs. The Invention," Intellectual Property Law Association of Florida, Miami, Florida.November 12, 2003, "Trade Secret Litigation from the Defense Perspective," Law Seminars International Trade Secrets Workshop, Chicago, Illinois.September 24, 2003, "Use of Prosecution History in a Markman Hearing," Association of Patent Law Firms Markman Roundtable, Chicago, Ilinois (National Audiocast).June 1,8, and 22, 2001, "Litigating the Nuances of Willful Infringement," AIPLA Advanced Patent Litigation Roadshow, Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; and Los Angeles, CA.July 11-15, 2000, Trademark Trial Advocacy Workshop, INTA and DePaul College of Law, Chicago, Illinois (Lecturer on "Impeachment Techniques in Cross-Examination"; instructor on direct and cross-examinations and use of exhibits.April 2000, Protecting Trade Secrets Online Seminar, sponsored by Law.com, New York City, New York (Faculty member and discussion leader).

Verdicts and Settlements: Mr. Lyerla led the successful defense of the Solo Cup Company in Fort James Company v. Solo Cup Company. Fort James alleged that Solo Cup infringed 3 patents relating to the microstructure of pleats in the rims of paper plates. Fort James sought nearly $100 million, including treble damages and attorneys fees. Flouting recent Federal Circuit opinions rejecting the defense as legally unsound, Mr. Lyerla made the centerpiece of the defense that Solo was merely "practicing the prior art". The Milwaukee, Wisconsin jury was out less than two hours before returning a verdict of non-infringement giving Mr. Lyerla's client a total victory. The jury's verdict was not appealed.Mr. Lyerla took over the defense of MCI in the second day of an emergency injunction trial when his partner could not continue because of the unexpected early arrival of her baby. This trial included an unusual cross examination by Mr. Lyerla. Illinois Bell alleged that MCI's advertising that its rates for local toll phone calls were "always lower" than Bell's was misleading. With no deposition or notes, Mr. Lyerla cross-examined Bell's expert who had testified concerning a consumer survey. By the end of the free-wheeling cross-examination, the expert conceded, among other things, that he could not consistently distinguish between leading and non-leading questions in a consumer survey. When Bell's lawyer did not re-direct the witness, Judge Joan Gottschall of the Federal Court in Chicago told Bell's lawyer to call his "next victim".Mr. Lyerla was one of three lawyers (from 3 different law firms) who represented Ron Katz and MCI in the very unique Markman hearing in RAKTLP and MCI v. AT&T, et al. The hearing in Philadelphia lasted nine full trial days - which included expert testimony and attorney argument. Judge Lowell Reed's opinion exceeded 100 pages and found for Mr. Lyerla's clients on virtually every contested issue.Mr. Lyerla took over the defense of a trade secrets case after prior counsel had lost a preliminary injunction trial. Mr. Lyerla counter-claimed and won a multi-million dollar judgment in a bench trial on the counterclaim. The high-point of the trial came when the plaintiff attempted to testify about imaginary conversations that he had envisioned with potential buyers of the business in question. Judge Harry Leinenweber, while laughing out-loud, over-ruled Mr. Lyerla's objection that no foundation for such testimony could be laid ‘unless the witness had been on drugs or suffering from a head injury' at the time of the imaginary conversations. The end result was another complete victory for Mr. Lyerla's client. Mr. Lyerla was asked by Quaker Oats to defend Bill Redmond, Quaker's newly-hired VP of Operations, in an emergency injunction trial brought by Pepsi. This case has become the leading case for a trade secrets doctrine known as the inevitable disclosure doctrine. Pepsi, Redmond's former employer, sought to block him from working for Quaker. After an eight day trial (that began only a week after the complaint was filed), the court denied Pepsi's request to prohibit Redmond from working at Quaker, but did restrict Redmond's areas of responsibility for approximately five months. The case is known not only for breaking new ground in trade secrets law, but also for the stories surrounding Mr. Lyerla's cross-examination of Pepsi's CEO, Craig Weatherup. For some of the inside story, see Lyerla, Thirteen Rules for Inevitable Disclosure Trials, The Computer Lawyer, Vol. 15, no. 6, June, 1998. Mr. Lyerla represented Business Records Corporation in a jury trial in Danville, Illinois. BRC contended that its former regional president stole trade secrets and used those trade secrets to gain the business of 16 former BRC customers. However, BRC did not authorize the depositions of the customers before the trial. When 13 of the former customers appeared at the trial and testified against BRC - a nightmarish scenario that Mr. Lyerla had foreseen -  he performed radical surgery on his theory in mid-trial and secured a 5 year injunction against the former president and recovered his client's attorneys fees. The case now is a leading case in Illinois regarding the enforcement of non-compete agreements that are ancillary to the sale of a business. Business Records Corporation v. Lueth, 981 F.2d 957 (7th Cir. 1992). Mr. Lyerla was part of a team of lawyers who represented General Dynamics in what is believed to have been the largest ADR mini-trial ever conducted up to that point. The night before the closing arguments, the lead lawyer for GD became too ill to argue the next morning. Mr. Lyerla prepared all night and argued for GD the following day on the critical liability issues. Mr. Lyerla's argument was singled out for praise by his client's Chairman of the Board. The ADR neutral (a retired federal district court judge who presided at the mini-trial) wrote an advisory opinion finding for GD on the key issues and recommending a substantial settlement in GD's favor. The case later settled for a nine figure settlement.

Educational Background: J.D., University of Illinois College of Law, 1980, with honors, member and editor, law review B.A., University of Illinois. 1976, Phi Beta Kappa