David Tellekson
206-389-4560
dtellekson@fenwick.com
Partner
Litigation
David K.
Tellekson
David K.
Tellekson
David K.
Tellekson
Partner
Litigation
Industries

Using a deep life sciences background, David is able to distill complex legal issues down to practical advice. At the start of a case, David works to identify a highly effective trial theme that fits the facts, and that will resonate with the jury or judge. David starts with the client’s business objective firmly in mind in planning and executing an effective legal strategy.

David has 30 years’ experience as a trial lawyer in technology disputes, primarily patent, trade secret, advertising and contract matters. He starts each case with a client’s business objective firmly in mind and works to identify highly effective trial themes that resonate with the jury or judge.

David has particularly strong experience in patent and licensing disputes in pharmaceutical, biotechnology, polymers and medical devices, as well as abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) litigation. He has represented clients in a variety of venues throughout the country, including federal and state courts, the International Trade Commission and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

David led a team that represented Cray in In re Cray Inc., which was honored as one of Managing IP’s “Milestone Cases of the Year” and won David recognition as “Washington’s Outstanding Litigator” (2018), an honor he received again in 2020. In the case, the Federal Circuit provided patent venue guidance in its precedential opinion, which followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods.

In addition to his trial work, David also consults on technology strategy, opinions and due diligence.

“Gold-ranked trial attorney David Tellekson is a veteran of notable campaigns in the life sciences, chemical and medical device industries.”

IAM Patent 1000

2020 Edition

  • Novozymes v. Genencor: Represented Novozymes as lead trial counsel asserting patent on genetically modified alpha-amylases. Genencor was found to have willfully infringed Novozymes’ patent and ordered to pay double damages and attorneys’ fees.
  • Cardiac Science v. Philips Electronics: Represented plaintiff as lead trial counsel in case involving 21 patents. Damages asserted by each side combined in excess of $200 million. Key victories by Cardiac Science at Markman and summary judgment led to a favorable settlement hours before a seven-week jury trial was set to begin.
  • Sigma-Aldrich and Oxford Biomedica (UK) Ltd. v. Open Biosystems: Represented patent owner Oxford Biomedica as lead trial counsel in a patent infringement action involving HIV vectors useful for gene therapy. Markman victory led to favorable settlement.
  • Raytheon v. Cray: Lead counsel for Cray, including in its petition for writ of mandamus after Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas denied Cray’s transfer motion in a patent infringement case. The team successfully overturned the four-factor test used by the Eastern District of Texas, leading to the landmark decision on what is considered a “regular and established place of business” and establishing that a defendant must have a physical location in the district in order for the venue to be proper.
  • Novozymes v. Danisco: Lead trial counsel representing Novozymes in a successful action against rival Danisco for infringement of Novozymes’ patent for an improved alpha-amylase useful for fuel ethanol production, among other industrial applications. A jury found that Danisco willfully infringed Novozymes’ patent and awarded over $18.2 million in damages.
  • National Products v. Multiple Respondents (ITC): Represented National Products, pursuing the company’s complaint in the ITC against several foreign entities for infringement of NPI’s patents and trademark in violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act. In June 2019, David and his team succeeded in obtaining a general exclusion order from the ITC, blocking any infringing products from entering the country.

  • Novozymes v. Genencor: Represented Novozymes as lead trial counsel asserting patent on genetically modified alpha-amylases. Genencor was found to have willfully infringed Novozymes’ patent and ordered to pay double damages and attorneys’ fees.
  • Cardiac Science v. Philips Electronics: Represented plaintiff as lead trial counsel in case involving 21 patents. Damages asserted by each side combined in excess of $200 million. Key victories by Cardiac Science at Markman and summary judgment led to a favorable settlement hours before a seven-week jury trial was set to begin.
  • Sigma-Aldrich and Oxford Biomedica (UK) Ltd. v. Open Biosystems: Represented patent owner Oxford Biomedica as lead trial counsel in a patent infringement action involving HIV vectors useful for gene therapy. Markman victory led to favorable settlement.
  • Raytheon v. Cray: Lead counsel for Cray, including in its petition for writ of mandamus after Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas denied Cray’s transfer motion in a patent infringement case. The team successfully overturned the four-factor test used by the Eastern District of Texas, leading to the landmark decision on what is considered a “regular and established place of business” and establishing that a defendant must have a physical location in the district in order for the venue to be proper.
  • Novozymes v. Danisco: Lead trial counsel representing Novozymes in a successful action against rival Danisco for infringement of Novozymes’ patent for an improved alpha-amylase useful for fuel ethanol production, among other industrial applications. A jury found that Danisco willfully infringed Novozymes’ patent and awarded over $18.2 million in damages.
  • National Products v. Multiple Respondents (ITC): Represented National Products, pursuing the company’s complaint in the ITC against several foreign entities for infringement of NPI’s patents and trademark in violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act. In June 2019, David and his team succeeded in obtaining a general exclusion order from the ITC, blocking any infringing products from entering the country.

  • Albumedix
  • Amyndas Pharmaceuticals
  • Celltrion
  • Cray
  • National Products
  • Novozymes
  • Passage Bio

  • Albumedix
  • Amyndas Pharmaceuticals
  • Celltrion
  • Cray
  • National Products
  • Novozymes
  • Passage Bio

David is a frequent writer and lecturer in areas of patent law and patent litigation:

  • “A Cautiously Optimistic Diagnosis For Patent Eligibility,” Fenwick & West, May 2018 (author)
  • “Fenwick’s Top 10 Most Popular Articles of 2017: Federal Circuit Provides Much Needed Patent Venue Guidance Post TC Heartland,” Fenwick & West, first published September 2017 (co-author)
  • “Litigation Alert: No Exception to Statutory Requirement That a Biosimilar Applicant Provide Notice of Intent to Market its Product,” Fenwick & West, July 2016 (co-author)
  • “Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Leaves Intact PTAB Authority to Institute and Regulate Inter Partes Review Proceedings,” Fenwick & West, June 2016 (co-author)
  • “Lingering in Lexmark's Wake, Uncertainty About the Limits of Patent Exhaustion,” Fenwick & West, March 2016 (co-author)

David is a frequent writer and lecturer in areas of patent law and patent litigation:

  • “A Cautiously Optimistic Diagnosis For Patent Eligibility,” Fenwick & West, May 2018 (author)
  • “Fenwick’s Top 10 Most Popular Articles of 2017: Federal Circuit Provides Much Needed Patent Venue Guidance Post TC Heartland,” Fenwick & West, first published September 2017 (co-author)
  • “Litigation Alert: No Exception to Statutory Requirement That a Biosimilar Applicant Provide Notice of Intent to Market its Product,” Fenwick & West, July 2016 (co-author)
  • “Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Leaves Intact PTAB Authority to Institute and Regulate Inter Partes Review Proceedings,” Fenwick & West, June 2016 (co-author)
  • “Lingering in Lexmark's Wake, Uncertainty About the Limits of Patent Exhaustion,” Fenwick & West, March 2016 (co-author)

Recognition Recognition Recognition

Recognition Recognition Recognition

Recognition
Managing Intellectual Property

2014 - 2022

  • IP Star (2014 – 2022)
  • Washington’s Outstanding Litigator (2018, 2020)
IAM Patent

2012 - 2022

Recognized for patent litigation in Washington.

U.S. News - Best Lawyers

2015 - 2021

Biotechnology and life sciences, patent litigation and intellectual property litigation

Chambers USA

2010 - 2022

Intellectual property

  • The Recorder, finalist for Tech Litigation Department of the Year (one of the highlighted cases was David’s summary judgment for supercomputer maker Cray on two supercomputer patents asserted by Raytheon) (2019)
  • IAM Global Leaders, patent litigation (2020 – 2021)
  • The Legal 500, patent litigation (2020 – 2022)
  • Super Lawyers (Washington), IP practice and litigation (2011 – 2022)

Recognition
Managing Intellectual Property

2014 - 2022

  • IP Star (2014 – 2022)
  • Washington’s Outstanding Litigator (2018, 2020)

IAM Patent

2012 - 2022

Recognized for patent litigation in Washington.

U.S. News - Best Lawyers

2015 - 2021

Biotechnology and life sciences, patent litigation and intellectual property litigation

Chambers USA

2010 - 2022

Intellectual property

Login

Don’t have an account yet?

Register