Grant Esposito is a trial lawyer with particular expertise in complex commercial litigation involving life sciences, securities, and transactional disputes.

Litigation Approach

Grant works with clients to identify pragmatic and cost-effective solutions to their challenging legal problems, crafting case strategies aligned with their business objectives and needs. Grant sees the big picture and focuses on the key issues at stake, enabling him to position clients for successful outcomes whether during motion practice, a settlement, or at trial. A client noted that Grant “understands from the beginning your strengths and weaknesses and is not afraid to tell you.”

His legal acumen has been recognized by clients and leading publications in the field. He was named an American Lawyer Litigator of the Week, an IP MVP by Law360, and a Trailblazer in Intellectual Property Law by the National Law Journal. Grant has also been recognized in Chambers USA (New York–General Commercial Litigation), Legal 500 US (Litigation–Product Liability, pharmaceuticals and medical devices), and Best Lawyers in America (New York–Product Liability Litigation).

More About Grant

Grant counsels public companies on litigation risk, government investigations, and disclosure issues. In addition, Grant serves as a member of the firm’s Executive and Compensation Committees, and is a former chair of Morrison & Foerster’s Litigation Department.

Notable Matters

  • Bethpage Toxic Tort Litigation (E.D.N.Y.)
    Lead trial counsel in class action and individual cases alleging environmental contamination and toxic torts in excess of $1 billion.  Advise client on related regulatory issues.
  • In re Puerto Rico Bankruptcy (D. PR)
    Represent interests of holders of more than $2 billion in bonds.
  • SS&C Technologies, Inc. v. Clearwater Analytics (Conn. Superior Court)
    Defend client against claim of misappropriation of trade secrets.
  • Mosher v. DaVita Healthcare Partners (N.Y. Com. Div.)
    Represented client in escrow dispute and related matters arising from $4.2 billion acquisition. Settled on favorable terms.
  • Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.)
    Designed statutory construction strategy that defined the “patent dance” contained in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund et al. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., et al. (D. Mass.)
    Secured dismissal of putative antitrust class action challenging patent settlement.
  • United States of America et al v. Novartis AG, et al. (D. Mass.)
    Secured dismissal of a False Claims Act lawsuit alleging off-label marketing and kickback scheme.
  • In re OxyContin Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)
    Trial counsel for Sandoz; prevailed on all patents.
  • In re Fletcher International Ltd.
    Secured dismissals in New York, Boston, and Louisiana for auditor in alleged Ponzi scheme seeking hundreds of millions in damages.
  • Frontier Insurance Group, Inc. v. Ernst & Young LLP (S.D.N.Y.)
    Won a unanimous jury defense verdict in an actuarial malpractice case seeking in excess of $200 million.
  • Madoff Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)
    Secured dismissal of securities fraud and negligence lawsuit against service provider.
  • In re Sino-Forest Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)
    Represented Canadian auditor in securities fraud proceedings; obtained favorable settlement.
  • Confidential Arbitrations
    Numerous proceedings involving merger litigation, breach of contract, and payor-provider disputes.
Show More


Show More


Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.