Quinn emanuel trial lawyers

Perlson, David A.

David A. Perlson

Partner

  Biography

David Perlson is a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s San Francisco office.  He is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer specializing in intellectual property and commercial litigation and practices extensively in patent, antitrust, trade secret, and class action litigation.  Mr. Perlson has successfully tried many cases to verdict over the course of his career and won numerous cases on dispositive motions before trial.  He also plays an active role in the firm’s appellate practice and has argued several winning appeals at the Federal Circuit.  

Mr. Perlson has substantial experience representing companies in a wide range of industries, including Internet, digital media, gaming, financial services, and other technology fields—specifically litigation in connection with smartphones and other mobile devices.  In Internet fields, he has represented Google, IAC, YouTube, AOL, RealNetworks, Listen.com, Netscape, and Nullsoft. In the mobile (smartphone) space, he has represented Samsung, HTC, Moto and Google. In the gaming field, he has represented Bally Gaming, Mindplay, and Las Vegas Sands Corp. In the financial industry, he has represented Bancorp Services, MBNA, and Arther Gallagher. 

Mr. Perlson  has been recognized as a Northern California “Rising Star,” in San Francisco Magazine for Intellectual Property Litigation.

  Representative Clients

  • In Internet and other technology fields, he has represented Google, YouTube, RealNetworks, Listen.com, AOL, Netscape, Nullsoft, Time-Warner and IBM.
  • In the gaming field, he has represented  Bally Gaming, Mindplay, and Las Vegas Sands Corp.
  • In the financial industry,  he has represented Bancorp Services, MBNA, and Arther Gallagher.
  • In the mobile (smart phone) space, he has represented Samsung, HTC, Moto and Google.

  Notable Representations

  • In a jury trial in the District of Delaware, obtained a complete defense verdict for Google and YouTube in a patent infringement action in which plaintiff Personalized User Model, LLC accused Google’s search, advertising, and YouTube systems of infringing two patents relating to personalization services.  The jury found all claims not infringed, and the patents invalid as anticipated and obvious.  Jury further found that one of the named inventors breached his employment agreement with his prior employer (whose rights Google had purchased) by failing to assign the inventions to that employer.  Also obtained final rejections of every asserted claim on numerous grounds in parallel inter partes reexaminations.
  • In a jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas, obtained a complete defense verdict of non-infringement and invalidity as to all asserted claims for Google in a patent infringement action brought by Bright Response. The patent at issue related to a method for providing automatic responses to electronic messages. The plaintiff sought over $120 million in damages.  
  • Represented Google and four Google AdSense customers (AOL, IAC, Target, and Gannett) in patent infringement litigation brought by I/P Engine, Inc. At trial, obtained a finding of laches that eliminated over $400 million in pre-suit damages. Argued the appeal and obtained a complete reversal of both the verdict and ongoing royalties with the Federal Circuit finding that the asserted patents obvious as a matter of law. By reversing the district court and invalidating the asserted patents, this decision saved Google both the $30.5 million jury award and the much larger ongoing royalty award that the district court had imposed. The Federal Circuit decision was called one of the 10 Most Significant Patent Stories of 2014 by IAM Magazine.
  • Represented Samsung, HTC, Motorola Mobility, and Google against French digital security company Gemalto.  Gemalto alleged that Defendants’ Android devices infringed three of its patents directed at allowing Java-based applications to run on smart cards and microcontrollers.  Argued and obtained affirmance of the summary judgment of non-infringement before the Federal Circuit in a June 2014 precedential opinion.
  • In Brite Smart v. Google, obtained an unprecedented writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit directing the district court in the Eastern District of Texas to rule on a pending motion to transfer and staying all proceedings pending a ruling on that motion.  The district court subsequently transferred the case to the Northern District of California.  Following transfer, obtained dismissal of all claims for want of prosecution. 
  • Representing Google, brought and won an early summary judgment motion of invalidity.  The patent-in-suit was asserted against Google by Paid Search Engine Tools ("PSET").  PSET had accused Google's AdWords system of infringing the patent, which involved a bid management system that could adjust bidders' bids in online auctions in order to obtain their desired positions and eliminate "bid gaps." Argued and obtained per curiam affirmance of the summary judgment of invalidity before the Federal Circuit.
  • Represented RealNetworks in a case brought by Friskit in the Northern District of California for patent infringement seeking $70 million in damages.  The Court granted RealNetworks' motion for summary judgment of invalidity and invalidated all four asserted patens as obvious. This was one of the first district court decisions to apply the Supreme Court decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.  
  • Represented Google and AOL in a case brought in the Eastern District of Virginia by Bid for Position for patent infringement seeking over $150 million in damages.  After obtaining a favorable claim construction ruling, the Court granted Google and AOL's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the defendants' accused Internet advertising services.  Obtained affirmance of summary judgment by the Federal Circuit.
  • Represented Bally Technologies in a case brought by Shuffle Master and International Gaming Technology alleging infringement of patents relating to casino table game monitoring.  The Court granted Bally's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on one of the patents asserted by Plaintiffs and granted its motion for summary judgment of obviousness on the other patent.  The Court also granted Bally's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims of correction of inventorship on a number of Bally's patents.
  • Represented Google and AOL in a patent infringement action brought in the Eastern District of Texas by Performance Pricing.  The asserted patent related to an e-commerce method for adjusting the price of a product according to a buyer’s performance in a collateral “price determining activity.”  The Court granted Google and AOL’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the accused Internet advertising services as to all asserted claims.  Plaintiff was seeking over $400 million in damages and additional future royalties.  Argued and obtained per curiam affirmance of the summary judgment of non-infringement before the Federal Circuit.
  • Represented Google in a patent infringement action brought by PA Advisors, LLC, in the Eastern District of Texas.  The asserted patent related to personalizing Internet search results.  The Court granted Google’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as to all asserted claims.  Plaintiff had sought over $100 million in damages.  
  • Represented Bancorp Services in a suit against The Hartford Insurance company for stealing trade secrets and breaching a confidentiality agreement. After a two-week trial requiring that we explain sophisticated financial products to jurors, the St. Louis jury deliberated for less than a day and unanimously awarded Bancorp $118 million.
  • Represented AOL, Nullsoft, and Time Warner in a class action alleging contributory and vicarious copyright infringement through file share technology.  After getting Plaintiff to drop class action allegations, obtained a summary judgment ruling of non-infringement.
  • Represented IBM in a class action against claims of breach of warranty and consumer fraud relating to the sale and marketing of allegedly defective hard drives.  Obtained dismissal of complaint in one state and defeated class certification in another before obtaining favorable settlement. 

  Education

  • Northwestern University
  • (J.D., cum laude, 1996)
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology:
      • Associate Articles Editor, 1995-1996

  • University of Wisconsin
    (B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, 1993)

  Admissions

The State Bar of Illinois; The State Bar of California;United States Supreme Court; United States Courts of Appeals: Federal Circuit, Ninth Circuit; United States District Courts: Northern District of California, Eastern District of Texas