Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC is a law firm serving clients locally and nationwide. Our firm provides litigation and dispute resolution services in a wide variety of cases to individuals and businesses. Our trial lawyer team have the necessary skill and experience to successfully resolve your case, and is prepared to protect your rights inside and outside of the courtroom.
Our firm represents clients in a wide variety of commercial matters and has successfully litigated cases for clients all over the country. Since litigation has been an essential component of our practice since the inception of the firm, our attorneys have the necessary experience to successfully resolve a multitude of commercial legal matters, including, but not limited to, the practice areas listed to the right.
Our attorneys are experienced at trial and are comfortable in the courtroom. They have litigated disputes for both plaintiffs and defendants, including corporate clients, small businesses, and individuals. Our attorneys have represented clients through every phase of their case, including complex appeals.
At Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, we examine every case from with a holistic standpoint. We will work with you to understand every aspect and detail of your case. Our attorneys then examine the merits of the case and provide you with advice that is specifically tailored to your individual circumstances regarding how to proceed.
It surprises many of our clients to hear that litigation is not always the best course of action. When all aspects of a case are considered — including the legal, financial, and psychological impacts — litigation may not be the best solution to your legal dilemma. The seasoned attorneys at Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig will fully analyze the merits of your case and will offer you individualized advice as to whether litigation is the best avenue for your case.
If litigation should be pursued, our experienced attorneys know the most effective strategies. We work with each of our clients to develop a plan that will help them reach their goals as efficiently and effectively as possible, and we constantly re-evaluate our clients’ risks and benefits during the course of litigation, re-assessing settlement and litigation strategies on an ongoing basis as new facts and issues arise.
At Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, we understand that protecting your business is an essential element of success. Our trial lawyer team and staff has the necessary skill in litigation to protect the interests of your business. We will work with you to develop a comprehensive plan that will allow your business to achieve its individual goals.
At Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, we provide litigation and dispute resolution services to clients located nationwide. Contact our office today to schedule an appointment with one of our experienced litigators.
Disclaimer: case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case, and case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.
Swimways Corp. v. Zuru, LLC, Case No. 2:13cv334, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31571 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2014): Defended successful international toy company against claims of patent infringement and pursued defenses of patent invalidity, resulting the all disputed claims of the patent being declared invalid.
United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 710 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2013) (pending before the United States Supreme Court): Prosecuted Qui Tam whistleblower claims (False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729) of Carter alleging fraudulent billing of the United States for services provided to the military forces serving in Iraq in Federal Court. Successfully appealed lower court ruling to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Appellate court reversed district court’s decision that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Carter’s claims because of the False Claims Act’s first to-file bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5). Made new law in the Court of Appeals on the issue of whether the statute of limitations on Carter’s complaint was not tolled by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA), 18 U.S.C. § 3287, which is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. Fed. Government of Nigeria, 932 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D. D.C. 2013): Defended the Federal Government of Nigeria in international collections dispute brought by a logistics company related to a disputed government contract seeking damages of $423,184,115.29.
Dougherty v. Advanced Wings, LLC, No. 1:13-cv-447, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110801 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2013): Defended a Virginia aviation and flight training company against allegations of fraud and breach of contract brought by a disgruntled flight student. Successfully secured an early dismissal of the lawsuit upon jurisdictional and substantive grounds.
Hayes v. Withers Broadcasting Company, 930 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D. D.C. 2013): Defended a large communications company in trademark infringement action alleging infringement of a mark related to an internet radio website by a prominent West Virginia radio station. Successfully secured an early dismissal of the lawsuit upon jurisdictional grounds.
Oracle America, Inc. v. Service Key, LLC, Case No: C 12-00790 SBA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171406 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012): Defended an information technology government contractor that was accused, by Oracle, of copyright infringement and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act relating to downloads of firmware upgrades and software patches from Oracle in service of governmental clients.
Manchester Oaks Homeowners Association v. Batt, 284 Va. 409 (2012): Successful challenge to an HOA’s discriminatory parking policy, resulting in a groundbreaking decision by the Virginia Supreme Court, awarding clients damages and recovery of their full attorneys’ fees.
Modis, Inc. v. Infotran Systems, Inc., 893 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D. D.C. 2012): Successfully defended government subcontractor against claims brought by large government prime contractor involving allegations of breach of restrictive covenant/non-compete agreement. The case was ultimately dismissed without any damages having been awarded to the plaintiff prime contractor.
Titan Atlas Manufacturing v. Sisk, 894 F. Supp. 2d 754 (W.D. Va. 2012): Defended patent infringement claims against Titan Atlas Manufacturing, Inc. involving technology licensed from Entwicklungs und Verwertungs Gesellschaft M.B.H., for a prefabricated construction panel used to construct mine ventilation overcasts. Defended patent infringement claims seeking damages of $2,440,018, prosecuted declaratory judgment counterclaims challenging the validity of the patent at issue.
Anderson v. Legrand, Case No. 1:11cv1169 (LMB/JFA), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20523 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2012): Defended real estate developer that was sued in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia upon numerous causes of action. Secured early dismissal of all counts upon a motion to dismiss asserting personal jurisdiction grounds.
Noble Security, Inc. v. MIZ Engineering, Ltd., 611 F. Supp. 2d 513 (E.D. Va. 2009): Represented international computer lock manufacturer in prosecuting patent infringement and related claims.