Quinn emanuel trial lawyers

Eiseman, David

David Eiseman

Partner

  Biography

David Eiseman founded Quinn Emanuel’s first Northern California office in 1997, and is the Co-Managing Partner of the firm’s San Francisco office.  David’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation in the federal courts and the ITC.  David has represented clients in a wide array of patent, copyright, and trademark infringement matters, as well as patent licensing, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition litigation.  In addition to litigation, David regularly counsels clients regarding intellectual property issues. 

Since joining Quinn Emanuel, David has litigated a substantial number of patent cases in the federal courts and the ITC, including cases for Barnes & Noble, Johnson & Johnson, Charter Communications, and Metaswitch.  David has tried patent cases to verdict successfully in the wireless communications, semiconductor, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical fields.  David has also resolved patent cases successfully prior to trial by way of summary judgment or by way of settlement following favorable claim construction rulings or other pretrial proceedings in the computer software, medical device, semiconductor, information technology, and biotechnology fields. 

 

  Representative Clients

  • Barnes & Noble

  • Johnson & Johnson

  • Metaswitch Networks

  • R2 Semiconductor

  • Time Warner Cable

  • Charter Communications

  • Google

  • Ricoh

  • Kyocera

  Notable Representations

  • Currently representing Metaswitch Networks in a series of patent infringement cases pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving VoIP technology.
  • Currently representing Barnes & Noble in a patent infringement case pending in the Northern District of California involving website search technology.
  • Currently representing R2 Semiconductor in an ITC proceeding and patent infringement case pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving semiconductor technology.
  • Represented Time Warner Cable in a patent infringement case in which patent holder alleged that Time Warner Cable infringed a patent relating to video-on-demand technology. On summary judgment, Time Warner Cable invalidated the asserted patent under the Supreme Court’s recent Section 101 jurisprudence.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
  • Represented Barnes & Noble in a patent infringement case in which patent holder alleged that Barnes & Noble’s NOOK eReader products infringed two patents related to methods for syncing information between two or more devices in a network. Barnes & Noble obtained summary judgment of non-infringement as to both asserted patents.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
  • Represented Barnes & Noble in an ITC proceeding in which patent holder alleged that Barnes & Noble’s NOOK eReader products infringed patent directed to the manner in which hardware components on microprocessor are clocked. After a seven-day trial, the ALJ issued his initial determination finding that Barnes & Noble’s accused products did not infringe and that Barnes & Noble had not violated Section 337.  The Commission subsequently affirmed the ALJ’s claim constructions and non-infringement findings and, therefore, terminated the investigation.
  • Represented Charter Communications in two patent infringement cases filed by Verizon in the Eastern District of Texas on six VoIP-related patents.  Based on the claim construction, non-infringement, and invalidity positions developed by Quinn Emanuel, Charter Communications convinced Verizon to settle the two cases on very favorable terms.
  • Represented Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ortho-McNeil in a patent inventorship dispute relating to new biological drugs for the production of red blood cells. The dispute included lawsuits in Germany and the United States and culminated in a major multi-year arbitration.  After 34 days of testimony, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of Ortho-McNeil.  
  • Represented Johnson & Johnson subsidiary ALZA in a patent inventorship dispute in which two individuals claimed that they were the inventors of an ALZA patent covering liposomes used for the targeted delivery of pharmaceuticals. After a one-week bench trial, the district court rejected the claim of inventorship and entered judgment in favor of ALZA. 

  Education

  • University of California, Hastings College of the Law
    (J.D., magna cum laude, 1984)
    • Order of the Coif
    • Thurston Society
    • Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly:
      • Senior Articles Editor, 1983-84

  • Brown University
    (A.B., 1980)

  Admissions

The State Bar of California; District of Columbia Bar; United States Court of Appeals: Federal Circuit, Ninth Circuit; United States District Courts: Northern District of California, Central District of California, Eastern District of California, Southern District of California, Eastern District of Texas; Western District of Tennessee; Western District of Wisconsin

  Prior Associations

  • Law Clerk to the Hon. Charles A. Legge, United States District Judge:
    • Northern District of California, 1984-1985

Professional Activities

  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Member, American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law
  • Member, The State Bar of California:
    • Intellectual Property Litigation Section