Saul Perloff
Image of Saul Perloff

Saul Perloff

Partner

Email

saul.perloff@aoshearman.com

Phone

+1 512 647 1970

Offices

Austin

V-CARD

 Saul is an accomplished first-chair trial lawyer and Life Sciences Sector Lead.

For more than 30 years Saul has represented domestic and international clients in advertising and unfair competition litigation under the Lanham Act and state laws, as well as in other complex commercial and intellectual property disputes.

 Saul’s clients describe him as “responsive, pragmatic and able to effectively communicate the realities of litigation or potential litigation with non-lawyers,” and “a great in-court litigator” who is “direct and effective” with “great commercial sense.” As lead trial counsel, he has successfully prosecuted and defended disputes involving false advertising, unfair competition, trademark/trade dress and patent infringement, as well as antitrust, TCPA and Qui Tam actions in courts across the country. He also represents clients in government investigations, arbitrations and NAD proceedings.

From 1992 to 1995, Saul served as a JAG officer and member of the Chief Counsel’s Honor Program in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Expertise

Industries

Experience

Representative matters

  • A leading precision oncology company against a competitor for false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act. After a 3-week trial, a jury unanimously awarded our client a $292.5 million verdict, including $175.5 million in punitive damages, representing one of the largest Lanham Act false advertising verdicts ever rendered. The jury also unanimously rejected the defendant’s counterclaims.
  • A global luxury brand against a competitor for trademark infringement and counterfeiting.  After a one-week trial, a federal jury entered a unanimous verdict for our client.  The jury also rejected defendant’s counterclaim. 
  • A major manufacturer of personal protective equipment (PPE) against several companies for false advertising, trademark infringement, and price gouging during a global pandemic. The defendants agreed to a consent judgment disgorging their profits as well as a permanent injunction.
  • The leading US producers of oil and gas pipeline components against a foreign competitor falsely advertising its products as ASTM compliant. After a 2-week trial, the jury entered a unanimous, multi-million-dollar verdict for our clients and the court subsequently entered a permanent injunction and recall.
  • World leading food company against a competitor falsely advertising its products as equivalent to the clients’ branded prescription medical foods. After a two-week jury trial, the case settled on favorable terms, including a significant seven-figure payment to the client. 
  • Counsel of record for International Trademark Association (INTA) as amicus curiae to United States Supreme Court in Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Company, No. 12-761.
  • Manufacturer of a brand-name wound care ointment in a two Lanham Act cases against companies who falsely advertised their products as “generic” alternatives to the brand. After securing preliminary injunctions against both defendants and defeating multiple dispositive motions, the cases proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of each 3-week jury trial, the court entered significant multi-million-dollar judgments and injunctions against both defendants.
  • A leading producer of functional foods and nutritional supplements in a consumer class action.  After allowing the plaintiff to replead its case, the court dismissed the amended complaint against our client with prejudice.
  • A major outsourcing facility producing sterile compounded drugs against a competitor alleging that that our client’s ready-to-administer surgical drug violated FDA rules.  After considering our client’s motion to dismiss as well as statements from the FDA, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  The 9th Circuit affirmed the ruling in a significant decision.
  • A major publisher of financial news in a TCPA class action. After completing discovery, the court entered summary judgment on our client’s behalf and dismissed the case in its entirety with prejudice.
  • The global leader in non-invasive cancer testing and bioinformatics against a competitor that disparaged the client’s testing and falsely claimed to offer a superior test. After accelerated discovery in preparation for a preliminary injunction hearing, the case settled on favorable terms, including a significant payment to the client.
  • The developer of a genetically engineered forage crop against a competitor falsely claiming its conventional seed offered similar benefits to the client’s. After discovery, the case settled on favorable terms for the client.
  • A Europe-based pharmaceutical company in a qui tam action brought by a former employee who alleged the client’s marketing of its leading products was misleading. After delivering a presentation to the California Department of Insurance, the state elected not to intervene. The case later settled for less than defense costs.
  • Leading biotech tools company against a competitor that falsely claimed a study showed its gene analysis system was superior to the client’s. After initial discovery, the case settled on favorable terms that required the defendant, among other things, to remove all references to the comparison study and to recall and destroy all materials related to the study. 
  • Major international pharmaceutical company against a competitor that falsely advertised allegedly “generic” versions of the client’s brand name pancreatic enzyme drugs. After the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the case settled on terms favorable to the client, including a significant payment to the client.
  • Manufacturer of the only FDA-approved inhaled antibiotic treatment for cystic fibrosis patients in a Lanham Act suit against a competing company and three compounding pharmacies. After obtaining a temporary restraining order against the defendants, the parties reached a settlement under which the defendants were required to market their treatment with disclaimers warning doctors and patients that their therapy was not clinically proven.
  • Leading consumer product company in a suit against the supplier of a “store-brand” version of the client’s top-selling oral rinse. After conducting preliminary discovery, the parties reached a settlement that included a permanent injunction requiring the defendant to withdraw its offending product from the market.

Pro bono

  • National MS Society.
  • Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

Published Work

  • Saul Perloff, "The Ties that Bind: The Limits of Autonomy and Uniformity in International Commercial Arbitration," 13 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 323 (1992). 
  • Saul Perloff & Hal Perloff, "Latent Defects in Government Contracts Law," 27 Pub. Cont. L. 87, 89 (1997).
  • Co-Author, (2017) “‘Milking’ The 1st Amendment To Defend Food Label Claims,” Law360
  • Co-Author, (2012) “Drug Company Asserts Right to Require FDA to Protect Market Exclusivity of Brand Drugs,” Washington Health Care Update
  • Author, (2008) “Understanding and Achieving the Goals of the Client,” Inside the Minds: Advertising and Marketing Litigation Best Practices
  • Author, (2007) “Understanding and Achieving the Goals of the Client?,” Advertising and Marketing Litigation Best Practices: Leading Lawyers on Preventing Conflicts, Mitigating Risks, and Deciding When to Settle vs. Litigate (Inside The Minds)

Speaking Engagements

  • Guest, “Brands and the Law: An Interview with Saul Perloff,” The B2B Brand Podcast, June 2020
  • Presenter/Moderator, “2019 Litigation Trends Annual Survey,” ACC South/Central Texas Chapter, February 2020
  • Presenter, “Protecting Your Brand Against False Advertising,” Texas Bar Association 16th Annual Advanced In-House Counsel Course, August 2017
  • Presenter, “The First Amendment & FDA Restrictions on Commercial Speech,” Momentum Food & Beverage Webinar Series, June 2016
  • Panelist, “It’s a Brave New World: Real World Strategies for Understanding What Kind of Off-Label Marketing Is Allowed Or Is Still Off-Limits Post-Amarin,” ACI Forum on Promotional Review Compliance for Drugs & Devices, January 2016
  • Panelist, “Exploring The Top 5 Blunders In Food & Beverage Promotional Campaigns,” Food & Beverage Litigation, Compliance & Regulatory Exchange, October 2015
  • Presenter, “Managing risks: Assessing, mitigating and managing risks in the current environment,” Third Annual Food
  • Law Tele-Summit, October 2015
  • Panelist, “Off-label marketing regulations and enforcement: Implications of the Caronia and Amarin rulings,” Web Seminar, September 2015
  • Moderator & Panelist, “2015 Litigation Trends Survey,” ACC America South/Central Texas Chapter, July 2015
  • Moderator, “Food Litigation Year in Review,” The Food & Beverage Marketing & Advertising Law Summit, September 2014
  • Panelist, “Advertising’s Day in Court: The Supreme Court Takes a Stand on False Advertising,” ALI-CLE Web Seminar, July 2014
  • Moderator, “Tenth Annual Litigation Trends Survey findings,” Web Seminar, June 2014
  • Moderator, “Bringing Efficiency and Predictability to Litigation,” ACC America South/Central Texas Chapter, December 2012
  • Moderator, “The ABCs of NDAs,” ACC America South/Central Texas Chapter, August 2011
  • Moderator, “Corporate Compliance Best Practices: Dos and Don’ts,” ACC America South/Central Texas Chapter Roundtable, August 2010
  • Presenter, “Advertising and Promotion: Employing the Competitor Complaint Avenue to Your Advantage,” ACI Corporate Counsel Forum on Advertising & Promotion for the Pharmaceutical Industry, November 2008
  • Presenter, “Generic Drug Substitution: A Legal Perspective,” Annual Meeting, Association of Consultant Pharmacists, November 2002

Leadership Positions And Professional Affiliations

  • American Bar Association
  • California Bar Association
  • San Antonio Bar Association

Recognition

“Saul is direct and effective.”
Chambers USA Nationwide
“Saul has great commercial sense, which is ultimately the most important factor.”
Chambers USA Nationwide

Awards

  • Litigation Star, Texas, Benchmark Litigation, 2026
  • Advertising Litigation – Nationwide, Chambers & Partners, 2021-2025
  • Media Technology and Telecoms – Advertising and Marketing Litigation, The Legal 500, 2015–2021
  • Intellectual Property/Trademarks Litigation, The Legal 500, 2015–2018
  • Healthcare: Life Sciences, The Legal 500, 2021
  • “Stand-out Lawyer”, Thomson Reuters, 2023-2026
  • “Acritas Star”, Acritas, 2017–2021
  • The Best Lawyers in America, Best Lawyers, 2013–2026
  • “Texas Super Lawyer”, Thomson Reuters, 2013–2019, 2021-2023
  • AV Preeminent Rated Lawyer, LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell

Qualifications

Admissions

Attorney-at-law, State of California, US, 1991

Attorney-at-law, State of Texas, US, 1996

Courts

United States Supreme Court

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

United States District Court for the Central District of California 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

Academic

AB, Princeton University

JD, University of Pennsylvania Law School

Attended L’Institute D’Etudes Politiques de Paris on a Rotary International Scholarship

Languages

French
Disclaimer
A&O Shearman was formed on May 1, 2024 by the combination of Shearman & Sterling LLP and Allen & Overy LLP and their respective affiliates (the legacy firms). Any matters referred to above may include matters undertaken by one or more of the legacy firms rather than A&O Shearman.