Source: https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/g/david-garr
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 03:29:42+00:00

Document:
David Garr is a litigator with broad experience representing clients in complex patent trials spanning U.S. District Courts, post-issuance proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission.
With a background in electrical engineering and digital telecommunications, Mr. Garr specializes in cases involving the most sophisticated and demanding technical issues. He has litigated patent disputes on electronic hardware, semiconductors, sensors and displays, cellular and WiFi protocols, software, pharmaceuticals, and mechanical components. He also advises clients on intellectual property strategy and development.
Before becoming a lawyer, Mr. Garr worked as a program manager in the information technology industry.
Representation of Aruba Networks in patent litigation and three inter partes review proceedings on wireless communication technologies involving beamforming. XR Communications v. Aruba Networks, No. 2:17-cv-2945 (C.D. Cal.).
Representation of Samsung Display Company as intervenor and petitioner in patent litigation on liquid crystal display technologies, spanning multiple cases in the District of Delaware, numerous inter partes review proceedings, and Federal Circuit Appeals. MiiCs et al. v. Toshiba et al., and Funai et al., Nos. 14-cv-803 and -804 (D. Del.).
Representation of Dover Corporation and Knappco Corporation d/b/a Civacon as petitioner in inter partes review proceeding on fuel dispensing and sensor technology. Obtained a complete victory, with all challenged claims cancelled in a final written decision and adverse judgment. IPR2016-00342.
Representation of a leading pharmaceutical company as patent owner in inter partes review proceeding on biologic drug formulations. Obtained a complete victory, with all challenged claims confirmed in a final written decision. IPR2015-01537.
Representation of Ventex Company as petitioner in two inter partes review proceedings on heat management material. IPR2016-00651 and -00789.
Representation of Huawei as petitioner in various sets of inter partes review proceedings on data transfer interface technologies (e.g., IPR2017-00415, -00443), cellular positioning and handoff (e.g., IPR2018-00209, -00210, -00251), and battery charging circuitry (e.g., IPR2018-00479).
Representation of Aristocrat Technologies as petitioner in inter partes review proceeding on slot machine technologies.
Representation of Texas Instruments as petitioner in three inter partes review proceedings on architecture and graphics technologies.
Representation of OmniActive Health Technologies as petitioner in three inter partes review proceedings on methods of treatment of macular degeneration.
Representation of Aruba Networks in patent litigation in the District of Delaware about mesh networking technologies. F2VS v. Aruba Networks, No. 17-754 (D. Del.).
Representation of Samsung Electronics, Samsung Display, and various distributors in patent litigation in the District of Massachusetts about LED semiconductors and related fabrication technologies. Trustees of Boston University v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. (D. Mass.).
Representation of Shoe Show in patent litigation with its adversary DSW in the Northern District of Ohio about retail display fixtures. DSW Inc. v. Shoe Show, Inc. (N.D. Ohio).
Representation of Palm Inc. in various patent litigation actions involving digital camera technologies, CDMA cellular communications, Wi-Fi networking, and other mobile device technologies in the District of Delaware, Southern District of California, and the Eastern District of Texas. FlashPoint Technology, Inc. v. Aiptek, Inc., et al. No. 08-139 (D. Del.).; SPH America, LLC v. Acer, Inc., et al.(S.D. Cal.); SPH America, LLC v. Apple Inc., et al. (S.D. Cal.); WiAV Networks, LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. (E.D. Texas).
Representation of InnoLux Display in a patent infringement case in the District of Delaware about LCD viewing angle display technologies. Guardian Indus. Corp. v. InnoLux Display Corp. (D. Del.).
Representation of Manheim Auctions in a patent infringement case in the Northern District of Georgia about software that integrates remote bidders into a live auction. Auction Management Solutions, Inc. v. Manheim Auctions Inc. (N.D. Ga.).
Representation of AutoTrader.com in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas about online database systems. GraphOn Corp. v. Autotrader.com, Inc. (E.D. Texas).
Representation of Samsung Electronics in defending a major patent infringement case about smartphones and tablets brought by Enterprise Systems Technologies. On the eve of trial, we obtained a ruling that the complainant lacked standing to critical patent rights, terminating the case in part. In re Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-925.
Representation of Knowles Electronics in a complex patent infringement case against GoerTek about MEMS microphone packaging. Following a trial, the ITC’s Initial Determination concluded that GoerTek infringed all claims of Knowles’s three asserted patents, that none of the asserted claims of all three patents were invalid, and that Knowles established a domestic industry for all three asserted patents. In re Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-888.
Representation of Knowles Electronics in multi-jurisdictional patent litigation against Analog Devices about MEMS microphone packaging, spanning several cases before the ITC as well as various U.S. District Courts and other tribunals. In re Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-825.
Representation of Indo Count in defending a patent infringement case about textile weaving technologies brought by AAVN, Inc. Certain Woven Textile Fabrics and Product Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-976.
Representation of Samsung Electronics and various other respondents in a patent infringement trial about flash memory brought by BTG. In re Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-683.
Representation of Samsung Electronics in a patent case on short-wavelength LEDs and lasers brought by Professor Gertrude Rothschild. In re Short Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-640.
Representation of permanent resident in removal proceedings pending before the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Representation of criminal defendant charged with violent crimes in Maryland and DC courts.
Representation of applicant for Social Security benefits in appealing and overturning a disability denial.
Representation of owner of house damaged in Hurricane Katrina in securing insurance benefits.
Sturgis Sobin, Alexander Chinoy, Brian Bieluch, Jeffrey Lerner, David Garr, Jay Alexander and Robert Haslam are mentioned in this article regarding their representation of Knowles Corporation in their patent infringement victory before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.