AnovaLaw

 

Anova Law Group PLLC

 

Anova Law Group, PLLC                                         
                                                                                                                                                                         Contact Us        English | 中文
 
 

 David Farnum, J.D.


 Of Counsel


David.Farnum@anovalaw.com

DMFarnum@ATFirm.com

Office: 202.349.1490

Mobile: 703.801.1084

Fax: 202.318.8788

 

Profile

 

David M. Farnum is of-counsel to Anova and leads firm’s IP litigation, while maintaining his own independent IP law practice.  Mr. Farnum is a leading national intellectual property litigator with focus on patented high technologies and science, trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights, false advertising, licensing, and unfair competition. In this capacity, Mr. Farnum has litigated dozens of patent suits before numerous United States District Courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the International Trade Commission.

 
Mr. Farnum has been lead counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants in suits involving a variety of technologies for US and foreign companies, often coordinating with counsel in Germany, France, Japan, Taiwan and Canada. In the high technology area, he has represented clients in such industries as electronics, telecommunications products and services, Internet technologies, software, computer hardware, financial services, semiconductors and optical systems and components. He has also represented clients in the sciences industries, including biotechnology, medical devices and pharmaceuticals (including Hatch-Waxman litigation).
 
Mr. Farnum is also experienced in the licensing and transactional components of complex technologies, often involving multimillion dollar settlements without need of litigation. Where amicable resolution is not reached, he is recognized by peers and clients alike as a visionary in pretrial strategies and for his creativeness in the tactics to implement these strategies.
 
In patent cases, Mr. Farnum frequently obtains findings of invalidity and non-infringement as a matter of law, resulting in efficient case resolutions without the need for a trial. Where trial has been necessary, Mr. Farnum has successfully enforced and defended client rights. His negotiation experience is often critical to garnering the most favorable settlement terms for firm clients.
 

Education

 

J.D., Yale University, 1998

 
AB, University of Chicago, Phi Beta Kappa
 

Bar and Court Admissions

 

District of Columbia

 

Connecticut

 

 

Representative Intellectual Property Litigations

 

Advanced Processor Technologies Litigations:


Advanced
Processor 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.


 

 

 

 

Wenye (Wilson) Tan, J.D.

 

Sherry Wu, J.D.

 

David Farnum, J.D.

 

Li Jiang, Ph.D., J.D.

 

Eric Cai, Ph.D., J.D.

 

Alex Hu, J.D.

 

Cynthia Wu, Ph.D.

 

Wengchong Shu, Ph.D.

 

Cheri Huang

 

Su Xu, Ph.D.

 

Frank Chen, Ph.D.

 

Siyuan Ge, MS.

 

Joshua Wang, Ph.D.

 

Kevin Wang, Ph.D.

 

Steven Wang, Ph.D.

 

Qionghua (Chloe) Weng, Ph.D.

 

Sean Xu, Ph.D.

 

Fang Zhao, Ph.D.

 

Shawn Zhang, Ph.D.

 

Xixi Ai

 

Stella Cao

 

Denise Cheung

 

Jerry Guo

 

Wendy Lin

 

Akiko Yoshida