Skip Repeated Content

Michael Hofmann is a partner in the Denver office and a member of the firm's Complex Commercial Litigation practice group. With significant trial and appellate experience, Mr. Hofmann brings clarity to obscure and rigorous topics. In complicated situations, he ensures that focus is maintained and key client objectives are primary.

With a practice centering on complex commercial and white collar litigation, most recently involving antitrust, securities, intellectual property, bankruptcy, and commercial breach of contract cases, Mr. Hofmann also has extensive experience with putative class actions. He has represented clients in federal and state courts in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, and before the Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh circuits.  


Civic Involvement & Honors

    • Colorado Super Lawyers, 2012–2016
Read More

Professional Affiliations

    • HEPC Connection, 2007–2013
    • Colorado Judicial Institute, 2009–2013
    • Faculty of Federal Advocates, 2000–present
    • Colorado Lawyers' Committee, Board Representative, 2007–2009
    • Faculty of Federal Advocates, 2000–present
    • Colorado Lawyers' Committee, Board Representative, 2007–2009
    • Colorado Lawyers' Committee, Board Representative, 2007–2009
Read More

Representative Experience

  • C5 Medical Werks, LLC v. CeramTec GmbH, 2017 WL 56073, 2014-cv-00643-RBJ (D. Colo. January 5, 2017) (trial representation of client in trademark dispute; judgment in client’s favor canceling defendant’s trademark registrations and enjoining defendant).

  • Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments, LLC¸-- F.3d --, 2016 WL 7260600 (10th Cir. 2016) (overruling prior circuit precedent and vacating adverse multi-million dollar judgment).

  • In United States v. Xcel Energy, Inc., Mr. Hofmann second-chaired the successful criminal defense of a Fortune 500 utility company and its subsidiary.  After a 4-week trial, the jury found the companies not guilty on all counts.
  • In Snyder v. Vail Resorts, Inc., Mr. Hofmann defended Vail Resorts, Inc. against a multi-million dollar breach-of-contract claim in a two-week jury trial in Summit County, Colorado. The plaintiffs dismissed their claims with prejudice, and agreed to an order barring their prior conduct, while the jury was deliberating and after the jury asked whether Vail could recover damages from the plaintiffs.
  • In Concord Computing Corporation. v. Financial Consulting & Trading International, Inc., Mr. Hofmann obtained a $16 million dollar federal court jury verdict for his client. The client had been sued as a defendant, and had counterclaimed. The jury rejected all claims against Mr. Hofmann’s client and awarded $16 million on the counterclaim.
  • BNSF Railway Co. v. Alstom Trans. Inc., 777 F. 3d 785 (5th Cir. 2015) (vacating adverse judgment and remanding for entry of judgment for client).
  • United States v. Chemical & Metal Indus., Inc., 677 F. 3d 750 (5th Cir. 2012) (reducing criminal restitution order against client from $3,000,000 to $500,000)
  • Williams v. Crop Production Servs., Inc., 361 P. 3d 1075 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015) (affirming judgment for client)
  • DerKevorkian v. Lionbridge Tech., Inc., 316 Fed. App’x 727 (10th Cir. 2008) (vacating damages award against client and remanding for new trial)
  • Donchez v. Coors Brewing Co., 392 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2004) (affirming judgment in favor of client in trademark, right of publicity, and intellectual property case)
  • In re Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc. Securities and ERISA Lit., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25951 (J.P.M.L. 2005) (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation order denying creation of multi-district litigation proceeding in securities matter)
  • Szaloczi v. John R. Behrmann Revocable Trust, 90 P.3d 835 (Colo. 2004) (reversing court of appeals and dismissing complaint against clients in shareholders’ rights action)
  • In re Qwest Comm. Int’l, Inc. Sec. Litig., 241 F. Supp.2d 1119 (D. Colo. 2002) (denying temporary restraining order sought against client)
  • Sowell v. Alumina Ceramics, Inc., 251 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment for client in employment case)