Source: https://www.honigman.com/attorneys-david-l-debruin.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:24:48+00:00

Document:
Legal Aid of Milwaukee, Inc.
David De Bruin is a seasoned first-chair trial and appellate attorney. He concentrates his practice on patent litigation and related proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and also litigates patent malpractice matters. David successfully argues legal issues, as well as explains complex technology to judges and juries.
Gemtron Corp. v. St. Gobain Corp. 572 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009); counsel for patentee plaintiff-appellee. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed.
Ormco Corp. v. Align Technologies, Inc. Case No. SACV 03-16 CAS (C.D. Ca. 2009), remanded from 498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. denied 128 S.Ct. 2430 (2008); counsel for plaintiff- appellant Ormco on patents regarding computerized design and manufacturing of custom orthodontic appliances. Initial dismissal reversed in part on claim construction and affirmed as to cross-appeal. Upon remand, jury verdict for plaintiff. Settled thereafter for cash and stock valued at $90 million plus additional consideration.
Ormco Corp. v. Align Technologies, Inc. 463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006); counsel for counterdefendant-appellant on patent claims. Summary judgment for counterplaintiff-appellee reversed and claims held obvious.
Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004), aff’g 216 F. Supp. 2d 1775 (D. Colo. 2002); appeal and trial counsel for plaintiff-appellee patent owner. Judgment of willful infringement affirmed.
Bemis Mfg. Co. et al. v. Dornoch Med. Sys., Inc. Nos. 00-1585, 01- 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2001); counsel for plaintiff-appellant in action involving devices and methods for disposing of medical suction canister waste. Summary judgment for defendant reversed based upon error in claim construction.
Johnson Worldwide Associates v. Zebco, et al. 175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999); plaintiff-appellee’s counsel on patent regarding heading lock for trolling motors. Summary judgment for plaintiff affirmed.
Marquip, Inc. v. Fosber America, Inc. 198 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999), aff’g unpub. dec. and 30 F. Supp. 2d 1142, (W.D. Wis. 1998), upon remand from 155 F.3d 567 (Fed. Cir. 1997); counsel for defendant-appellee in patent infringement action concerning corrugated paperboard machinery. Summary judgment of no infringement affirmed.
3M Company v. Kerr Corporation Case No. 07-C-0087-C (W.D. Wis. 2007); counsel for defendant in action for infringement of patents claiming composites and methods for making the same.
Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. Kohler Co. 408 F. Supp.2d 697 (W.D. Wis. 2006), 405 F. Supp.2d 986 and 398 F. Supp.2d 974 (2005); counsel for plaintiff in action for infringement of patents covering engine balancing system and cylinder head. Defendant enjoined following motions after trial.
Kerr Corporation v. 3M Company et al. Case No. 06-C-0423-C (W.D. Wis. 2006); counsel for plaintiff in action for infringement of patents covering apparatus and method for curing material with LED radiation.
John Mezzalinqua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC v. Corning Gilbert, Inc. Case No. 3-CV-0354-S (W.D. Wis. 2003); counsel for plaintiff in patent infringement action involving coaxial cable connectors. Jury verdict for plaintiff.
Zeevi v. Robert Bosch Corp. (N.D. Ill. 2003); counsel for defendant in action for infringement of patents covering vehicle navigation system.
Trombetta LLC v. Dana Corp. (W.D. Wis. 2003); counsel for defendant in action for infringement of patents covering solenoid switches.
The Toro Company et al. v. Scag Power Equipment (D. Neb., 2001); counsel for defendant in patent infringement action involving commercial lawn mowers.
Williams et al v. University of British Columbia et al. No. 00-485-A (E.D. Va. 2000); counsel for plaintiff in action to halt issuance of patent containing confidential technology derived from plaintiff regarding use of liposomes to treat arterial disease.
M&Z Produktions und Handelsgesmbh v. Hotronic International, Ltd. et al. (E.D. Va. 1999); counsel for plaintiff in action for fraudulent theft of patent and trademark rights regarding ski boot warmers and for infringement.
Ness v. Digital Dial Communs., Inc. 222 Wis. 2d 374; 588 N.W. 2d 63 (1999); counsel for plaintiff class. Judgment for plaintiffs affirmed.
Chevron Chemical Co. et al. v. Deloitte & Touche 207 Wis. 2d 43 (1997) upon remand from 176 Wis. 2d 935 (1993), aff’g, 168 Wis. 2d 323 (Ct. App. 1992); counsel for plaintiff in third-party accountant liability action. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed on merits and as sanction.
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Berson, et al. (E.D.N.Y. filed 1995); counsel for Aetna in RICO fraud action, seeking more than $45 million and naming 48 defendants, and in related satellite actions.
McMurray v. Harwood 870 F. Supp. 917 (E.D. Wis. 1994); action for correction of patent inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 involving plastic composite toe-cap patent.
In re Texas International Co. (U.S., Bank, W.D. Okla.); counsel for the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders responsible for investigating securities transactions involving Drexel Burnham Lambert and affiliates. Successful objection to $14 million in Drexel claims.
State of West Virginia ex rel. Insurance Commissioner as Receiver of Quality Insurance Co. v. Abdallah (D.W.Va.); Commissioner’s Counsel in RICO fraud action against former officers and directors.
Hunger Task Force of Milwaukee, Inc.
2012 – "Clients praise David De Bruin for being 'very clear in his explanations in litigation and procedure.' He acts on behalf of clients in patent litigation at trial and appellate level."
2010 – "Another impressive litigator at the firm is David De Bruin…He is noted for his 'superb analytical mind and ability to think his way around any issue.'"

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 256
 v.