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

• Certain Vehicle Control Systems, Vehicles Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1235: Lead counsel for complainant Jaguar Land Rover in an action against Volkswagen, Porsche, Audi, and Lamborghini for patent infringement related to automated terrain response technology.
• Certain Movable Barrier Operator Systems and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1209: Representing complainant Overhead Doors and related entities in patent infringement action against respondent The Chamberlain Group related to residential and commercial garage door openers, gate operators, and other movable barrier operators. Matter resulted in a finding of violation of Section 337 for infringement by The Chamberlain Group of three Overhead Door patents.
• Certain Tobacco Heating Articles and Components, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1199: Representing respondent Philip Morris and related entities in patent infringement action brought by complainant RJ Reynolds related to Philip Morris’ heat-not-burn technology.
• Certain Smart Thermostats, Smart HVAC Systems, and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1185: Representing Daikin Industries in its dispute with EcoFactor regarding EcoFactor’s patents related to smart HVAC systems.
• Certain Semiconductor Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1176: Representing complainant GlobalFoundries, Inc. in patent infringement action against respondent Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd (TSMC) and related entities regarding their semiconductor devices and manufacturing processes.
• Certain Lithium Ion Batteries, Battery Cells, Battery Modules, Battery Packs, Components Thereof, and Production and Testing Systems and Processes Therefor, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1159: Representing complainant LG Energy Solutions in theft of trade secret action against respondent SK Innovations; resulting in default judgment against SK Innovations for spoliation of evidence and one of the largest settlements in trade secret history.
• Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways, and Related Hardware and Software Components, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1158: Representing respondent Comcast Corporation and related entities in its patent infringement dispute with Rovi Corporation regarding Rovi’s patents related to digital video receivers and broadband gateways.
• Certain Digital Video Receivers and Related Hardware and Software Components, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1103: Representing respondent Comcast Corporation and related entities in its patent infringement dispute with Rovi Corporation regarding Rovi’s patents related to digital video receivers and software on those receivers.
• Certain Thermoplastic-Encapsulated Motors, Components Thereof, and Products and Vehicles Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1073: Representing respondent Honda Motor Co., Ltd and related entities in patent infringement action brought by Intellectual Ventures. Case terminated with a finding of no violation.
• Certain Shielded Electrical Ribbon Cables and Products Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1064: Representing respondent Amphenol Corp. and related entities in patent infringement action brought by complainant 3M. Matter settled after favorable claim construction.
• Certain Networking Devices, Related Software, and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-944/945: Representing respondent Arista Networks, Inc. in modification and enforcement proceedings affirming that Arista’s redesigned network devices do not infringe complainant Cisco’s assert patents.
• Certain Graphics Processing Chips, Systems on a Chip, and Products Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-941: Representing respondent NVIDIA Corporation in an action brought by Samsung for patent infringement regarding NVIDIA’s graphics processing units and systems on a chip.
• 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 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:

• NVIDIA v. Samsung (E.D. Va.): Representing defendant NVIDIA in patent infringement action brought by Samsung. Matter bifurcated, jury verdict of non-infringement on one patent, and matter settled favorably before trial on remaining two patents.
• InterDigital v. ZTE (D. Del.): Representing plaintiff InterDigital in asserting three patents relating to 3G and Wi Fi technologies, in which the jury found all asserted claims infringed and valid.
• 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.