Attorney Detail Banner
Back to Attorneys
Bilsker, David

David Bilsker

Direct Tel: +1 415-875-6432
San Francisco
Tel: +1 415 875 6600 Fax: +1 415 875 6700

David Bilsker is an IP attorney specializing in patent, copyright and trade secret litigation.  He has litigated more than 70 cases in Federal and State courts throughout the country.  Mr. Bilsker frequently is responsible for cross examining the opposing party’s technical expert or inventor.  In his first cross examination of an opposing technical expert at trial, when he was a second year associate, the expert admitted that his own work anticipated the patent.  The cases Mr. Bilsker has  litigated have resulted in more than 65 published opinions, including the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aukerman, where his client won the appeal and his argument presaged the Supreme Court’s recent decision eliminating laches as a defense in patent cases.  Mr. Bilsker has been named a "Northern California Super Lawyer" every year since 2006 and was selected as one of the top intellectual property attorneys by Bay Area Lawyer magazine.  He has represented clients in ground breaking actions involving Biotechnology, Electronics, Semiconductors, and Optics among others.  Mr. Bilsker holds a graduate degree in Biomedical Engineering and prior to law school, he worked as an engineer in the cardiac pacemaker field.  While in engineering school, he conducted and published original research on microcirculation, fluid drag reducing polymers, and hydrogen fuel technology.

  • Avery Dennison Corporation
  • Lexicon Pharmaceuticals
  • Bio-Rad Laboratories
  • Qiagen
  • Camtek
  • Mediatek
  • General Motors
  • Motorola Mobility
  • Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Mobility.  Ran day-to-day operation of nine patent ITC case covering multiple aspects of smart phone technology.  At trial, cross examined one inventor and numerous other witnesses. Case resulted in eight patents being found not infringed or invalid while ninth patent was designed around.
  • 3M Corporation v. Avery Dennison Corporation. As lead counsel,  defeated preliminary injunction motion filed by 3M which relied on eight patents  covering highly technical aspects of optics in retroreflective sheeting  used on street signs.  Antitrust counterclaims that Avery filed based on standard setting abuse led the FTC to institute its own investigation of 3M.  Case ultimately settled shortly before trial on favorable terms.
  • In Re Certain Microfluidic Devices, ITC Investigation No. 1068.  Lead counsel on matter involving droplet technology to prepare samples for NGS.  At trial, he was successful in having 3  patents found valid and infringed.
  • Rutgers University v. QIAGEN.  As lead counsel,  defended  QIAGEN against charges it infringed three patents covering an immunologically-based  Tuberculosis test.  Case settled on very favorable terms shortly after a successful Markman hearing.
  • QIAGEN v. Applied Biosystems. As lead counsel filed a declaratory judgement action seeking to invalidate numerous patents covering real-time PCR. After QIAGEN filed motions for summary judgement based on double patenting, the case quickly settled on very favorable terms.
  • Life Technologies v. Bio-Rad. As lead counsel defending Bio-Rad against charges it infringed multiple patents covering formulations for ready to use, off the shelf, protein separation gels, defeated motion for preliminary injunction after day long evidentiary hearing where technical experts and other witnesses were presented. Case settled on favorable terms after Markman hearing.
  • Digene v. Beckman.  Trial counsel for Digene in arbitration before the ICDR regarding patent rights to recombinantly produced HPV diagnostic test which is used to help detect cervical cancer.  Panel found entirely in Digene's favor.  
  • Gen II Orthotics v. Bledsoe.  Trial counsel for Gen II in a jury trial on patents covering a revolutionary knee brace.  The jury found the patents valid and willfully infringed, and award ultimately totaled near $10 million.
  • Tercica and Genentech v. Insmed.  Took over as trial defense counsel shortly before trial on rare pediatric orphan drug for recombinantly produced Insulin Like Growth Factor ( IGF).  Insmed had already been found to infringe one patent, and to have no validity defenses on the other two.  After a four-week jury trial and eight days of jury deliberation, Insmed obtained a favorable settlement which included an ongoing business relationship with the plaintiffs.
  • Lexicon Genetics v. Deltagen.  Lead counsel in two cases enforcing Lexicon's patents covering methods to increase the efficiency of gene targeting in mice.  One inventor and one primary witness shared the 2007 Nobel Prize in Medicine for this technology.  Lexicon obtained an eight-figure settlement.
  • Molecular Dynamics v. Bio-Rad.  Lead counsel in successful defense of Bio-Rad who was charged with  infringing  a patent covering a confocal microscope.  The patent was invalidated and held unenforceable for inequitable conduct -- the first time Judge Ronald Whyte of the Northern District of California had ever granted summary judgement  on that issue.
  • Primus v. Bio-Rad.  Lead counsel for Bio-Rad in a patent and antitrust case related to blood glucose monitoring equipment.  Obtained summary adjudication finding that Bio-Rad had not monopolized and that it was not infringing the patents.
  • Neothermia v. Rubicor.  Lead counsel for  Rubicor in patent and trade secret case relating to  surgical biopsy equipment used for breast cancer.  After depositions of the plaintiffs primary fact witnesses and inventors, plaintiff dismissed the case in exchange for Rubicor not seeking costs and fees.  This was the first case to apply California's trade secret disclosure requirement to a contract action for breach of a non-disclosure agreement.
  • PLC v. Eclipse Surgical Technologies.   Lead counsel defending Eclipse against charges that its clinical protocol and investigations for Trans-Myocardial Revascularization should be halted for infringing 3 copyrighted clinical trial protocols.   Defeated two preliminary injunction motions and in the process found that the plaintiff was not the owner of the works it was asserting.  Case settled shortly thereafter on very favorable terms. 
  • A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.  Represented Aukerman on appeal. The Federal Circuit (en banc) overturned the summary judgement of laches granted against Aukermn, and reversed decades of law on estoppel and laches that established Aukerman as the seminal case in the area for a quarter century. As part of the argument,  Mr. Bilsker argued that laches was not a proper defense to an action at law in patent cases, which though not accepted by the Federal Circuit, was adopted by the United States Supreme Court 25 years later in SCA Hygiene Products.    
  • KLA-Tencor v. TSK. Lead Counsel for TSK in patent case asserting   it infringed a patent on semiconductor inspection equipment.  After an all day Markman hearing during which expert witnesses were cross examined,  the court agreed with TSK that the asserted claims were "nonsensical" and invalidated the patent.
  • Micron Semiconductor v. Hyundai. Trial counsel for Hyundai.  During cross examination of Micron's expert, he admitted  that his own work anticipated the Micron patent covering anisotropic etching used in semiconductor fabrication. The case settled shortly thereafter.
  • Regents of University of California v. Genentech.   Counsel for the Regents who asserted patent covering recombinant production of Human Growth Hormone (HGH).  Was responsible for the preparation  of the Regent’s primary witness and inventor, Peter Seeburg.  Case settled after trial for $200 Million.
  • University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law
    (JD, with honors, 1990)
    • Elected Phi Kappa Phi and Order of the Coif; Senior Research Editor and Outstanding Board Member, Florida Law Review, 1988-1990
    • Recipient of American Jurisprudence Awards for: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Torts and International Business Law
  • University of Miami 
    (MS, BioMedical Engineering, 1986)
  • Columbia University
    (BS, Chemical/Bio Engineering, 1984)
  • The State Bar of California
  • The State Bar of Florida
  • United States Court of Appeals:
    • Federal Circuit
    • Ninth Circuit
    • Fifth Circuit
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office
  • Spanish
  • Howrey/Arnold White LLP:
    • Partner, 1997--2010; Associate 1994-1997
  • Townsend & Townsend:
    • Associate 1990-1994