Michael A. David

New York
  • 885 Third Avenue
  • New York, NY 10022-4834
  • USA
 
 

Michael David is counsel in the New York office of Latham & Watkins and is a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. He has significant experience as counsel in patent infringement actions before the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and in district courts. Mr. David has represented complainants, respondents and third parties in a multitude of ITC investigations, including through trial and post-trial Commission review. Mr. David has participated in six ITC trials and more than a dozen ITC investigations. He also frequently participates in consultations with US Customs and Border Protection regarding enforcement of ITC exclusion orders. Mr. David also has extensive experience litigating patent infringement actions in federal district courts and represents clients in matters involving trademark and copyright infringement. His representative experience includes the fields of:

  • Graphics processing technology
  • 3G wireless cellular devices
  • Liquid crystal display technology
  • Medical devices
  • Biometric scanning technology
  • Web analytics software
  • Advertising streaming technology
  • Satellite-delivered broadband global access networks

Mr. David is also active in pro bono matters and represents various clients in matters related to litigation involving special education law, applications for political asylum and applications for child custody.

In addition to the New York and District of Columbia bars, Mr. David is qualified to practice before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Exemplary representative ITC matters of Mr. David's include:

  • Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices with Graphics Processing and Graphics Processing Units Therein, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-932 – Representing complainant NVIDIA Corporation in an action against Samsung for patent infringement regarding NVIDIA’s graphics processing technologies
  • Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-613 (remand) – Representing complainant InterDigital Communications, LLC and related entities in an action against Microsoft Mobile Oy and Nokia Corporation for patent infringement related to InterDigital’s 3G WCDMA technologies
  • Certain Graphics Processing Chips, Systems on a Chip, and Products Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-941 – Representing NVIDIA Corporation and twelve other respondents in an action brought by Samsung for patent infringement based on Samsung’s claimed memory controller, gate electrode layer, and shared bus technologies
  • Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337–TA–868 – Representing complainant InterDigital Communications, LLC and related entities in action against Nokia, Samsung, Huawei, and ZTE regarding their importation of infringing 3G and/or 4G wireless cellular handsets
  • Certain Biometric Scanning Devices, Components Thereof, Associated Software, and Products Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-720 – Representing complainant Cross Match Technologies, Inc. in action against foreign competitor Suprema, Inc., and its U.S.-based distributor Mentalix, Inc. Initial Determination of violation of Section 337 was affirmed on Commission review
  • Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-800 – Representing complainant InterDigital Communications, LLC and related entities in action against Nokia, LG, Huawei, and ZTE regarding their importation of infringing 3G wireless cellular handsets
  • Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-782 – Representing respondent AU Optronics Corp. and related U.S. entity in defense of Samsung’s patent infringement allegations related to LCD technology. Matter settled favorably for AU Optronics prior to trial
  • Certain Flat Panel Display Devices, and Products Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-793 – Representing complainant AU Optronics Corp. and related U.S. entity asserting patent infringement against Samsung related to LCD and OLED technology. Matter settled favorably for AU Optronics prior to trial
  •  Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-786 – Representing third party Synopsys, Inc. in response to subpoena issued by complainant Freescale regarding Synopsys chipsets

Mr. David's district court representations include:

  • CR Bard v. W.L. Gore (D. Ariz.) – Representing patent holder in six week jury trial involving prosthetic vascular grafts made of expanded teflon. Jury verdict of willful infringement and US$185 million in past damages. On post-trial motions, damages doubled to US$371 million, and awarded US$19 million in fees and US$20.4 million in prejudgment interest. The court also awarded supplemental damages and an ongoing royalty. The verdict and total award to date, totaling over US$817 million, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Cross Match Technologies v. Suprema & Mentalix (E.D. Tex.) – Representing patent holder in infringement action against competitor involving four patents related to proprietary biometric identification technologies, including fingerprint scanners
  •  Advanced Media Networks v. Inmarsat Global & Stratos Mobile Networks (S.D. N.Y.) – Representing multiple defendants in patent infringement action relating to satellite-delivered broadband global access networks
  • ALDAV, LLC v. Regent Comm’ns (E.D. Tex.) – Represented defendant in multi-party patent infringement case involving radio streaming technology. Case favorably settled
  • EON IP Holdings v. USA Mobility (E.D. Tex.) – Represented defendant in multi-party patent infringement case involving two-way paging systems. Case favorably settled after reexaminations on asserted claims were granted
  • Venetec Int’l v. Nexus Medical Sys. (D. Del.) – Represented patent holder in infringement case involving catheter stabilization devices. Case favorably settled after Markman hearing and shortly before trial with Nexus exiting the relevant market.
  • Network Gateway Solutions LLC v. Zhone Tech. Inc. (D. Del.) – Represented defendant in multi-party patent infringement case involving digital network access servers. Case favorably settled
  • Brantigan v. DePuy Spine (W.D. Wash.) – Represented inventor in dispute over patent royalty rights relating to devices used for spinal fusion procedures. Case favorably resolved for a substantial confidential settlement after motion for summary judgment filed
  • Netratings, Inc. v. Visual Sciences, Inc. (f/k/a WebSideStory, Inc.) (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving web analytics solutions. Case settled favorably after Markman hearing. Visual Sciences was subsequently purchased by Omniture, Inc. patent infringement case involving web analytics solutions. Case settled favorably after Markman hearing. Visual Sciences was subsequently purchased by Omniture, Inc.
 
 
 
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.