David Loewenstein

David has over 30 years of patent and intellectual property litigation experience on all levels, from trial to appeal, and most recently in the ITC. 

He has litigated about 100 cases in about two-dozen U.S. States, involving a wide array of technologies from numerous multinational companies, such as software, wireless telecommunications, consumer goods, computer vision, forward collision avoidance, medical devices, automotive, biotechnology, nuclear magnetic resonance, chemical vapor deposition (“CVD”), electrochromic mirrors, and damages litigation.

He started his career at Fish & Neave, which was the premier patent litigation firm at the time, which traced its roots back to Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and the Wright Brothers. While he was there he was a member of the Polaroid v. Kodak litigation team that won just under one billion dollars, following an eight-month trial.   That award, which was paid, still stands as one of the largest patent awards in U.S. history.  He also worked for Morgan & Finnegan, another venerable U.S. patent litigation boutique.

David is also an arbitrator and mediator with the American Arbitration Association.

David received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering and a Master of Science from Tufts University and Columbia University respectively, along with a JD from Fordham University, in New York City.

His reported cases include:

Supreme Court

• Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (First Amendment)

Circuit Courts

• Edgewell/Playtex v. Albaad USA, Inc., 773 Fed. Appx. 626 (Fed. Cir. July 15, 2019)
• Young v. Lumenis, 492 F.2d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
• Komlosi v. Fudenberg, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 13310 (2^nd Cir. May 13, 2002) (Defamation and other torts)
• Horphag Research Ltd. v. Consac Industries, Inc., 1997 WESTLAW 196744, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
• Gentex Corp. v. Donnelly Corp., 69 F.3d 527, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1667 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
• National Research Development Corp. v. Varian Associates, Inc., 17 F.3d 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

District Court and ITC

• ITC Proceeding – Certain Blood Separation and Cell Preparation Devices (2019)
• ITC Proceeding – Certain Radio Frequency Micro-Needle Dermatological Treatment Devices and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 37-TA-1112 (2018)
• Uniloc2017 v. Cardo & Terrano (E.D. Texas 2018)
• Edgewell/Playtex v. Albaad USA, Inc.  2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230070 (D. Del. 2018) (summary judgment of patent invalidity), affirmed 773 Fed. Appx. 626 (Fed. Cir. July 15, 2019) (affirmed on appeal)
• M2M Solutions, LLC and Blackbird Tech. v. Sierra Wireless America and Telit Communications PLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204956 (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2019)
• M2M Solutions v. Motorola and Telit, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22944 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2016)
• M2M Solutions v. Motorola and Telit, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 872 (D. Del. Jan 6, 2016)
• Mobileye, Inc. v. Picitup Corp., 2013 WL 830837 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
• WRE-Hol, LLC v. Pharos Sci. & Applications, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82570 (W.D. Wash. July 23, 2010)
• Immersion Med. Inc. v. Mentice AB and Simbionix, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92034 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2009)
• Landmark Graphics Corp. v. Seismic Micro Tech., Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6897 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2007)
• Young v. Lumenis, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27792, (S.D. Ohio 2005)
• Infineon Technologies AG, v. Green Power Technologies Ltd., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11877 (D. DC. 2005)
• Brown v. 3M and Procter and Gamble, 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1298 (D. Ariz. 2000)
• National Research Development Corp. v. Varian Associates, Inc., 822 F. Supp. 1121 (D. N.J. 1993)
• Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1481 (D. Mass. 1990)
• Gardner v. Ford Motor Co., 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1177 (W.D. Wash. 1990)

David’s recent representative matters include:

• Endymed – RF skin care treatment
• Estar – Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP)
• Cardo – Bluetooth communications
• Various matters related to computer vision, visual search, forward collision avoidance and lane departure warning
• M2M Solutions v. Motorola, Telit (M2M communications)
• Datascope, Maquet Cardiovascular v. Teleflex, Arrow (medical device)
• Mizuho Orthopedic Systems v. Maquet Cardiovascular (medical device)
• Afa Polytek v. Clorox Company, Guala Dispensing (dispensing systems)
• Leighton Technologies v. On Track Innovations (RFID, smart cards)
• Smarter Agent v. Mobile Card Cast, Goomzee, StreetEasy, Terrostar (mobile real estate applications)
• Remote Light v. Galikers and United Dairy (UV water disinfectant)
• Like.com v. Superfish (imaging software)
• WRE v. Telmap (GPS software)
• Nautilus Neurosciences v. Edict Pharmaceuticals (ANDA litigation)
• CardioFocus v. New Star, Trimedyne, Convergent (medical lasers)
• Berger v. New York International Enterprises (trademark)
• PSB Investissement v. O2 (trademark infringement)
• Memory Control Enterprises v. OfficeMax (e-commerce software)
• Cutex v. Laboratories Delon (trademark infringement)
• Smarttrac v. OTI (RFID cards)
• Landmark/Halliburton v. Paradigm (oil exploration software)