J. David Hadden

Partner, Litigation  

Mountain View 650.335.7684


J. David Hadden focuses his practice on patent and other intellectual property litigation. Dave has a successful nationwide trial practice representing companies in a variety of technologies including ecommerce, cryptography, telecommunications, database management and business intelligence, cloud computing, hardware design, wearable tech, natural language processing, and machine learning. Dave was recently honored as one of the top 75 IP litigation attorneys in California by the Daily Journal, and has been repeatedly ranked as a “Super Lawyer” by Northern California Super Lawyers. He was also recently ranked by IAM Patent 1000 2017 in which he is described as “a hugely experienced litigator and trial attorney who leads teams to excellent results on time and within budget. He is well prepared and appropriately focused, and keeps a global perspective on the merits and impact of a dispute.”

Dave graduated, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, with honors in physics from Yale University in 1986, and went on to study string theory at Princeton as a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellow. Dave obtained his law degree from Yale Law School in 1994. Following graduation, he was a law clerk for the Honorable Walter J. Cummings, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Dave is a member of the S​tate Bar of California and admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In the last year Dave argued 5 Federal Circuit Appeals for clients including Amazon, Intel, Under Armour and Zillow, and won them all.

Recently, Dave secured a summary judgment of non-infringement followed by $820,000 in attorney’s fees for Voxer in a patent dispute with non-practicing entity IPVX Patent Holdings. Originally filed in the Eastern District of Texas by IPVX’s predecessor, Klausner, Dave succeeded in transferring the case to the Northern District of California, where his team’s motion for summary judgment was granted the day after it was argued, with the court finding that Voxer’s push-to-talk voice messaging system could not possibly infringe IPVX’s answering machine patent.

Dave was lead trial counsel for Zillow and Adchemy winning a defense verdict in the Western District of North Carolina against competitor LendingTree. After a five week trial, the jury found that Zillow and Adchemy did not infringe the asserted patents and the patents were invalid.

Dave successfully represented Twitter in a patent infringement action brought by Cooper Notification, obtaining a rare summary judgment in U.S. District Court in Delaware that was affirmed by the Federal Circuit after Dave’s oral argument. In the same year, Dave obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement for Groupon in a five patent case in the Middle District of Florida. The judgment was affirmed on appeal after Dave’s oral argument at the Federal Circuit.

Dave served as trial counsel for winning a defense jury verdict in Delaware in Cordance v. in which two of the three asserted patents were found not infringed and the third invalid. Following Dave’s oral argument, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury verdict. Dave has represented in numerous patent cases over the last 10 years, including the successful enforcement of’s 1-click® patent against

Dave served as trial counsel for Informatica, winning a $25 million jury award in its patent suit against Business Objects.

Dave represented Cryptography Research in asserting its eight fundamental differential power analysis countermeasure patents against Visa International, obtaining a successful settlement.

Dave was lead counsel for wireless messaging innovator Motorola Good Technology Group in multi-patent litigation with Visto. Prior to its acquisition by Motorola, Dave lead the defense of wireless messaging innovator Good Technology in its multi-front legal battles against Research in Motion (RIM), supplier of the BlackBerry service. That litigation encompassed five lawsuits in three jurisdictions and included patent, copyright, ​trademark, trade secret and business tort claims. Dave and his team defeated RIM’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the operation of Good’s GoodLink service on RIM handheld devices.