close

David Tellekson

Partner, Litigation  

Seattle | New York 206.389.4560

Overview

中文

David Tellekson litigates technology disputes, including patent infringement and licensing disputes, for clients in the areas of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, polymer chemistry, medical devices and other complex technologies. He has represented clients in a variety of venues throughout the country, including federal and state courts, the International Trade Commission and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition to his trial work, David also consults on technology strategy, opinions and due diligence.

David is a frequent writer and lecturer in areas of patent law and patent litigation. He has been selected as a Washington “Super Lawyer” in the area of Intellectual Property Litigation each year since 2008. From 2012-2019, Intellectual Asset Management magazine named David to the IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners. He is also included in the list of IP Stars by Managing Intellectual Property from 2014-2019. Managing IP also honored David as Washington’s Outstanding Litigator of the year at the 2018 Managing IP Americas Awards. Most recently, Chambers USA named David among the best lawyers for IP Litigation, a rank he’s held each year since 2010.

Representative Engagements

  • 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.
  • 3M v. Beautone et al. (ITC): Lead trial counsel representing 3M in patent infringement trial successfully protecting 3M’s multi-billion dollar Post-it® Note business.
  • Sigma-Aldrich and Oxford Biomedica (UK) Ltd. v. Open Biosystems: Represented patent owner Oxford Biomedica as lead trial counsel in patent infringement action involving HIV vectors useful for drug delivery. Markman victory led to favorable settlement.
  • Novozymes v. Genencor: Represented Novozymes as lead trial counsel asserting patent on genetically modified alpha-amylases. Genencor was found to willfully infringe 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 favorable settlement hours before seven-week jury trial set to begin.
  • 3M v. Seibu Polymer Chemical Co., Ltd. (ITC): Co-trial counsel representing 3M in a patent infringement trial protecting 3M’s rights in patents relating to the retroreflective sheeting market valued at more than $2 billion per year.
  • National Products v. Multiple Respondents (ITC): Obtained General Exclusion Order for National Products in its action involving five patents and one trademark at the ITC that alleged 10 Chinese respondents violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act.

Publications

  • David Tellekson and Elizabeth B. Hagan, Ph.D., Federal Circuit Expands Liability for Divided Patent Infringement, IP Strategist, September 2015
  • David Tellekson and Ewa M. Davison, Ph.D., Riddle Me This: The Federal Circuit Provides a Measure of Clarity to the Enigmatic Biosimilar Approval Pathway, Fenwick & West LLP, August 2015
  • ​David Tellekson and Phillip K. Decker, Litigation Alert: A Good­Faith Belief of Patent Invalidity Is Not a Defense to Inducement of Infringement, Fenwick & West LLP, June 2015
  • David K. Tellekson and John LaBarre, The Intersection of Antitrust and Intellectual Property: A Review of Recent Case Law and Trends, BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, August 11, 2006.
  • David K. Tellekson, Sandra S. Lee and Elizabeth A. Richardson, Strategies for Attacking and Defending Pharmaceuticals Patents; A Modern Take on 'The Art of War,' Intellectual Property & Technology Law, December 2005.
  • David K. Tellekson and Elizabeth Bernard, Have Patent, Will Travel: Can One Infringe a U.S. Patent by Making, Using, and Selling a Product Solely Outside the United States?, Intellectual Property Today, July 2004.

Presentation

  • The Decline of Process Patents: Enforceability of process claims and the controversy around divided infringement, BIO IP Counsels Committee Conference, April 2012.

 

 

 
​​​​​​​​​