概况

David M. Farnum 是北维律师事务所的顾问律师并负责事务所的知识产权诉讼事务。Farnum先生是在美国名列前茅的知识产权诉讼律师，重点是在高科技专利、商标、商业秘密、著作权、虚假广告、以及许可和不正当竞争等等的诉讼。在这方面，Farnum先生已经主导过几十起专利诉讼，涉及多个美国联邦地区法院、美国联邦巡回法院、和美国国际贸易委员会等等。

Farnum先生为涉及多种技术的美国和外国公司-不管是原告和被告-担任首席律师，并经常与德国、法国、日本、台湾和加拿大的律师协调。在高技术领域，他曾代表的客户遍及电子、电信产品和服务、互联网技术、软件、计算机硬件、金融服务、半导体和光学系统和组件等等行业。他还代表科学行业的客户，包括生物技术、医疗设备、和药品（包括Hatch-Waxman诉讼）。

Farnum先生对复杂技术的许可和交易方面也有很丰富的经验，经常达成数百万美元的和解而无需诉讼。当不能达成和解协议的时候，同行和客户都认可他在诉讼策略上的远见和他在战术上来实施这些策略的创造性。

在专利案件中，Farnum先生经常获得无效和不侵权的简易判决，从而有效地在没有庭审的情况结束案件。当庭审必要时，Farnum先生成功地为客户实施专利权或者为客户进行维权辩护。他的谈判经验往往是为客户赢得最有利的和解条款的关键。

教育背景

法学博士，耶鲁大学，1998年

学士，芝加哥大学，优等生

律师资格

哥伦比亚特区

康涅狄格州

近期代理过的代表性知识产权诉讼

Advanced Processor Technologies Litigations:
AdvancedProcessor Technologies v. Advanced Micro Devices (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to data processors supporting dynamic frequency and voltage switching and data processors supporting virtual memory functions.
AdvancedProcessor Technologies v. Altera (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to data processors with virtual memory functions.
AdvancedProcessor Technologies v. Atmel (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to data processors with virtual memory functions.
AdvancedProcessor Technologies v. Conexant Systems (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to data processors with virtual memory functions.
AdvancedProcessor Technologies v. Creative Labs (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to data processors with virtual memory functions.
AdvancedProcessor Technologies v. Marvell Semiconductor (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to data processors with virtual memory functions.
AdvancedProcessor Technologies v. Mindspeed Technologies (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to data processors with virtual memory functions.
AdvancedProcessor Technologies v. NVIDIA (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to data processors with virtual memory functions.
AdvancedProcessor Technologies v. PMC-Sierra (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to data processors with virtual memory functions.
AdvancedProcessor Technologies v. Xilinx (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to data processors with virtual memory functions.
AdvancedProcessor Technologies v. Analog Devices et al (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to data processors with virtual memory functions.

Wireless Recognition Technologies v. Amazon, Google, Nokia and Ricoh (E.D. Tex). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to mobile visual search systems.

Atwater Partners of Texas v. Comtrend Corporation (E.D. Tex.). Lead counsel for defendant in a patent suit relating to telecommunication system routers.

IBC-Hearthware v. Morningware (N.D. Ill.). Lead counsel for plaintiff in patent suit relating to countertop electric ovens.

Network Gateway Solutions v. Media5 (D. Del.). Lead counsel for defendant in a patent suit relating to digital network access servers.

Klausner Technologies, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation of North Am. (E.D. Tex.). Represented defendant in a patent suit relating to visual voicemail.

Balsam Coffee Solutions v. Melitta USA (E.D. Tex.). Represented defendant in patent suit relating to coffee processing systems.

Juxtacomm v. Metastorm (E.D. Tex.). Represented defendant in patent suit involving computer software relating to systems integration.

NSGDatacom v. Spatial Adventures (E.D. Va.). Represented plaintiff in suit over ownership of patent relating to virtual private networks.

Telarix v. Vero Systems/TEOCO (E.D. Va.). Lead patent counsel for defendant in a patent suit involving computer software relating to optimal cost routing in telecommunication networks.

Simplification v. Block Financial Corporation (D. Del.). Represented plaintiff in patent suit involving computer software relating to tax preparation.

Synergy v. Naturally Nova Scotia (ICDR). Represent complainant in an arbitration involving nutraceuticals.

Euro-Pro v. Euroflex (S.D.N.Y.). Represented plaintiff in Lanham Act false advertising case involving household steamers.

TEOCO v. Razorsight (E.D. Va.). Represented plaintiff in trade secret and copyright suit involving computer software relating to bill tracking software for telecommunication carriers.

Tessera v. Acer, Powerchip, Nanya, et al. (U.S. ITC). Represented respondent in patent suit involving small-format Ball Grid Array semiconductor packages.

Microsoft v. Alcatel-Lucent (U.S. ITC). Represented respondent in patent suit involving unified communication systems.

Telcordia v. Lucent Technologies (U.S. ITC). Represented respondent in patent suit involving routers, switches and hubs used in telecommunications equipment.

Telcordia v. Lucent Technologies (D. Del.). Represented defendant in patent suit involving routers, switches and hubs used in telecommunications equipment (dynamic time division multiplexing; survivable ring networks).

Golden Bridge Technology v. Lucent Technologies (E.D. Tex.). Represented defendant in patent suit involving 3rd generation wireless technology (RACH ramp-up).

QPSX Development v. Lucent Technologies (E.D. Tex.). Represented defendant in patent suit involving digital communication networks.

CCC Information Services v. Mitchell International (N.D. Ill.). Represented plaintiff in patent suit involving computer software (networked auto-estimating software).

Venetec International Inc. v. Nexus Medical LLC (D. Del.). Represented plaintiff in patent suit involving medical device (catheter stabilization device).

Fresenius Medical Care Holdings v. Roxane Laboratories (S.D. Ohio). Represented generic company in Hatch- Waxman case involving calcium acetate.

Abbott Laboratories v. IVAX (D. N.J). Represented patent holder in Hatch-Waxman case involving trandolapril.

ITT v. Sprint (D. Del.). Represented defendant in patent suit involving GPS and wireless communications technology (location based services; assisted GPS).

Armament Systems and Procedures v. Vector Products (E.D. Wis.). Represented defendant in patent suit involving miniature flashlights.

Software AG v. BEA Systems (D. Del.). Represented patent holder in suit involving computer software (middleware to integrate legacy systems). Favorable settlement one day before trial.

Kao Corp. v. Unilever (D. Del.). Represented defendant in patent suit involving copolymers used in cosmetic article. One week bench trial, directed verdict on willfulness at close of plaintiff’s case during trial, post-trial decision of non- infringement. Affirmed by Federal Circuit.

CFM Corp. v. Dimplex (N.D. Ill.). Represented patent holder in suit involving electric fireplaces. One week trial, jury award of $8 million damages.

Ecolochem v. Southern California Edison (C.D. Cal.). Represented patent holder in damages phase of trial. Favorable settlement after district court awarded over $12 million for combined damages and attorneys’ fees.

Bayer v. Carlsbad Technology, Inc. (S.D. Cal.). Represented generic drug company in Hatch-Waxman case involving ciprofloxacin.

In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation (Pfizer v. Teva Pharmaceuticals) (D. N.J.). Represented generic drug company in Hatch-Waxman case involving gabapentin. District court granted summary judgment of non-infringement (subsequently overturned on appeal).

Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical v. Barr Laboratories (D. N.J.). Represented patent holder in Hatch-Waxman suit involving tricyclen

GoLight v. Wal-Mart (Fed. Cir.). Represented defendant/appellant in petition for rehearing en banc on claim construction issue in patent suit involving search light.

MMTC v. U.S. PTO (E.D. Va.). Represented patent holder in dispute over failure to pay patent maintenance fees.

In the Matter of Certain Ear Protection Devices (U.S. ITC). Represented complainant 180s, Inc. in section 337 action. Early settlements from all respondents.

In the Matter of Certain Zero-Mercury-Added Alkaline Batteries, Parts Thereof and Products Containing Same (U.S. ITC). Represented respondent Chung Pak Battery Works in section 337 action.

Lucent Technologies and Agere Systems v. Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation (American Arbitration Assoc.). Represented claimants in arbitration over license regarding patents involving analog and mixed- signal integrated circuits.