Attorney Detail Banner
Back to Attorneys
Bilsker, David
Direct Tel: +1 415-875-6432
San Francisco
Tel: +1 415 875 6600 Fax: +1 415 875 6700
Tel: +1 (305) 402-4880 Fax: +1 (305) 901-2975

David Bilsker is an accomplished first-chair trial attorney specializing in patent, copyright, trade secret and antitrust litigation.  He serves as co-chair of the firm’s biotechnology practice. He has received litigator of the week honors from the American Lawyer, been named a Life Sciences Attorney of the year by Law360 and listed as a Northern California Super Lawyer each year since 2006.   In 2022 he obtained a $333.8 million dollar jury verdict for clients CGI/BGI based on  Illumina’s willful infringement of two DNA sequencing patents, while also securing a verdict that found the three patents Illumina asserted invalid.  Illumina satisfied the judgement, which is believed to be the largest ever obtained for a Chinese based company in the U.S.  Since the early days of his career, Mr. Bilsker has been involved in and lead many important biotechnology cases including those involving patents covering: the manufacture of HGH and IGF, the Nobel Prize winning  technology  on gene knockouts,  real-time PCR, single cell library preparation using droplets, library enrichment using various techniques, DNA sequencing chemistries, biotechnology equipment and standards, and dozens of cases relating to diagnostic assays based on both PCR and immunologic  detection.  He has also handled many cases involving medical devices, semiconductor process and inspection equipment, electronics and optics. Mr. Bilsker holds an undergraduate degree in Chemical and Bioengineering and a graduate degree in Biomedical Engineering and has conducted research and authored peer reviewed articles in the fields of microcirculation, fluid drag reducing polymers, and hydrogen fuel technology.  Prior to law school, he worked as an engineer in the cardiac pacemaker field. 

  • Complete Genomics Incorporated  (BGI/CGI)
  • Avery Dennison Corporation
  • Lexicon Genetics (Pharmaceuticals)
  • Bio-Rad Laboratories
  • Camtek
  • General Motors
  • Motorola Mobility
  • Vizgen
  • Dexcom
  • Medytox
  • CGI  (BGI) v. Illumina (D. Del)Lead counsel for CGI who prevailed in two-week jury trial and obtained a verdict holding that Illumina willfully infringed two CGI patents and all three Illumina patents were invalid.  Jury awarded $333.8 million, the exact amount CGI requested.  Illumina satisfied the judgement in full, which is believed to be the largest ever obtained by a Chinese based company in the U.S. courts.
  • Illumina v. CGI & BGI (N.D. Cal.).  Took over as lead trial counsel from another firm after BGI/CGI had been preliminarily enjoined from using its DNA sequencing technology.  After a week of deliberation, the jury invalidated the flagship Illumina patent having the most life and claims in another of the five asserted patents.  The jury rejected Illumina’s damages claim and awarded less than a third of what Illumina had requested.  The Court then refused to award attorney’s fees or enhance damages, finding the case very close, a reversal of his earlier finding at the preliminary injunction stage.  The case ultimately settled when Illumina agreed to satisfy the $ 333.8 judgement CGI/BGI had obtained while also agreeing to grant BGI/CGI more than three years of peace from suit. 
  • Archer and Mass General Hospital v. QIAGEN (D. Del.).  As lead trial counsel, got all of Archer’s state law claims dismissed, including those for misappropriation of hundreds of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty.  Post-trial motions regarding plaintiff’s patents remain pending.
  • In Re Certain Microfluidic Devices, ITC Investigation No. 1068 (ITC).  Lead counsel for Bio-Rad on matter involving patents covering droplet technology to prepare samples and libraries for NGS.   After trial, the ALJ found Bio-Rad had proven 10X had infringed 3 valid patents and recommended an exclusion order preventing importation of infringing devices.  The Commission affirmed the recommendation and an entered an exclusion order.
  • Rutgers University v. QIAGEN (D. NJ.).  As lead counsel,  defended  QIAGEN against charges it infringed three patents covering an immunologically-based  Tuberculosis (TB) test.  Case settled on very favorable terms shortly after a successful Markman hearing. 
  • 3M Corporation v. Avery Dennison Corporation  (D. Minn).  As lead counsel,  defeated request for preliminary injunction that relied on eight patents covering 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.
  • QIAGEN v. Applied Biosystems (N.D. Cal. ).  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.
  • Digene v. Beckman (ICDR Arbitration).  Trial counsel for Digene 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 (WD Wash).  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 (N.D. Cal.).  Took over as trial counsel from another firm shortly before trial on for case involving patents covering 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 two-week jury trial and eight days of jury deliberation, Insmed obtained a favorable settlement which included an ongoing business relationship with the plaintiffs. 
  • Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Mobility (ITC).  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.  
  • Life Technologies v. Bio-Rad (SD Cal.).  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. 
  • Lexicon Genetics v. Deltagen (N.D. Cal and D. Del.).  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 (ND Cal.)  Lead counsel in successful defense of Bio-Rad who was charged with  infringing  a patent covering a confocal microscope.  The Court invalidated the patent  and held it unenforceable for inequitable conduct -- the first time Judge Ronald Whyte had ever granted summary judgement  on inequitable conduct.
  • Primus v. Bio-Rad (W.D. Mo.).  Lead counsel defending  Bio-Rad in a case charging Bio-Rad with patent infringement and antitrust violations regarding technology related to blood glucose (A1C) monitoring products.  Obtained summary adjudication finding that Bio-Rad had not monopolized and that it was not infringing the patents.
  • Neothermia v. Rubicor (ND. Cal.).  Lead counsel for  Rubicor in patent and trade secret case relating to  surgical biopsy equipment used for breast cancer.  After depositions of the plaintiff’s 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 (D. Mass.).   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 (Fed. Cir. en banc.).  Represented Aukerman on appeal where the Federal Circuit overturned a summary judgement finding 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. 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 (ND. Cal.) . 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 (ITC). Trial counsel for Hyundai.  During Mr. Bilsker’s 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 (Multi-District Litigation, D. Ind., ND Cal.).   Counsel for the Regents who asserted patent covering recombinant production of Human Growth Hormone (HGH).  .  Case settled after trial for $200 Million which was used to build the UCSF Mission Bay Medical Campus.
  • 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
  • The Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch, Litigation - Patent, Patent Law, 2023
  • Named a Law360 MVP in Life Sciences, 2022.
  • American Lawyer First Runner Up Litigator of the Week
  • Northern California Super Lawyer 2006-present