FacultyFaculty/Author Profile
David Bilsker

David Bilsker

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP

San Francisco, CA, USA

Practice Areas

Domestic Arbitration
Intellectual Property Litigation
International Arbitration
Life Sciences Litigation


David Bilsker has successfully tried numerous patent cases throughout the country. He has consistently been named a "Northern California Super Lawyer" and was selected as one of the top intellectual property attorneys by Bay Area Lawyer magazine. He has represented clients in actions covering a wide range of technologies including medical devices, biotechnology, smartphones, semiconductor design and fabrication, optics and communication systems. Prior to law school, Mr. Bilsker worked as an engineer designing pacemakers. While in engineering school, he conducted original research in microcirculation and hydrogen fuel technology.

Representative Clients

Avery Dennison Corporation
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals
Bio-Rad Laboratories
Insmed Pharmaceuticals
Motorola Mobility
Notable Representations

Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Mobility. Successfully represented Motorola in a nine patent case before the ITC covering various aspects of smart phone technology.

3M Corporation v. Avery Dennison Corporation. Defeated preliminary injunction motion filed by 3M and
favorably settled thirteen patent case covering retroreflective sheeting used on street signs.

Digene v. Beckman. Counsel for Digene in arbitration before the ICDR regarding patent rights to HPV
technology in which the panel found in Digene's favor.

Gen II Orthotics v. Bledsoe. Counsel for Gen II in a jury trial on patents covering a revolutionary knee brace. The jury found the patents valid and willfully infringed, and award ultimately totaled near $10 million.

Tercica and Genentech v. Insmed. Took over as defense counsel shortly before trial on rare pediatric orphan drug case involving three patents covering recombinant IGF. Insmed had already been found to infringe one patent, and to have no validity defenses on the other two. After a four-week jury trial and eight days of jury deliberation, Insmed obtained a favorable settlement which included an ongoing business relationship with the plaintiffs.

Lexicon Genetics v. Deltagen
. Lead counsel in two cases enforcing Lexicon's patents covering methods to increase the efficiency of gene targeting in mice. One inventor and one primary witness shared the 2007 Nobel Prize in Medicine for this technology. Lexicon obtained an eight-figure settlement.

Molecular Dynamics v. Bio-Rad. Lead counsel in successful defense of Bio-Rad who was charged with infringing a patent covering a confocal microscope. The patent was invalidated and held unenforceable for inequitable conduct -- the first time Judge Ronald Whyte of the Northern District of California had ever granted summary adjudication on that issue.

Primus v. Bio-Rad. Lead counsel for Bio-Rad in a patent and antitrust case related to blood glucose monitoring equipment. Obtained summary adjudication finding that Bio-Rad had not monopolized and that it was not infringing the patents.

Neothermia v. Rubicor. Lead counsel defending Rubicor against charges that it misappropriated trade secrets and infringed a patent covering surgical biopsy equipment. After depositions of the plaintiffs primary fact witnesses and inventors, plaintiff dismissed the case in exchange for Rubicor not seeking costs and fees. This was the first case to apply California's trade secret disclosure requirement to a contract action for breach of a non-disclosure agreement.

A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co. Represented Aukerman on appeal. The Federal Circuit (en banc) reversed decades of law on estoppel and laches and established Aukerman as the seminal case in the area. Aukerman subsequently prevailed at trial.

KLA-Tencor v. TSK. Successfully defended TSK against a charge that it infringed a patent on semiconductor inspection equipment. After receiving expert testimony at the Markman hearing, the court agreed with TSK that the asserted claims were "nonsensical" and invalidated the patent.

Micron Semiconductor v. Hyundai. As a second-year lawyer, got Micron's expert to admit during crossexamination at trial that his own work anticipated the Micron patent covering anisotropic etching used in semiconductor fabrication. The case was settled favorably for Hyundai.


University of Florida Fredric G. Lev in College of Law
(JD, with honors, 1990) 
    Order of the Coif 
    Phi Kappa Phi 
    Florida Law Review
        Senior Research Editor and Outstanding Board 
        Member, 1988-1990

University of Miami
(MS, BioMedical Engineering, 1986)

Columbia University
(BS, Chemical/Bio Engineering, 1984)

Prior Associations

Howrey LLP:
Partner, 2000-2010

Arnold White & Durkee (merged with Howrey):
Partner 1997-2000
Associate 1994-1997

Townsend & Townsend:
Associate 1990-1994


Member, The State Bar of California; Member, The State Bar of Florida; United States Court of Appeals:
Federal Circuit, Ninth Circuit, Fifth Circuit; United States Patent and Trademark Office



  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.