Skip to content

David Tennant

Partner

Washington, D.C.

Image of David Tennant
David Tennant

Partner

Washington, D.C.

David is a partner in the Intellectual Property practice in the Washington, D.C. office focused on patents. His background in electrical engineering gives him an clear understanding of the highly-technical concepts and products he helps to patent, as well as challenge in post-grant proceedings, in such areas as software, computer servers, network routers, microprocessors, semiconductor processes, semiconductor devices, image sensors, circuits, consumer electronics and mobile products and services.

David has a successful track record of protecting and challenging patents in post-grant proceedings implemented under the America Invents Act (AIA). In such proceedings, clients benefit from his experience in both litigating complex patent cases in district courts and the International Trade Commission and procuring patents.

In patent procurement matters, David has extensive experience drafting and prosecuting patent applications. He understands how to leverage his patent litigation experience in order to obtain patents of utmost quality. In addition, clients turn to him for his guidance on establishing, developing, maintaining and leveraging their patent portfolios to maximize value.

David brings knowledge and insight to transactional matters, including patent licensing negotiations, technology agreement negotiations and service provider agreement negotiations. He also provides advice on patent invalidity, enforceability and infringement studies.

David is a frequent lecturer on all aspects of intellectual property protection. International in experience and outlook, he has spent extended periods of time working abroad with a Japanese client, and has served as in-house counsel for a leading Japan-based international consumer electronics manufacturer.

Noteworthy experience includes advising (includes previous firm experience):

  • Square Inc. successfully defended in a district court litigation and as a petitioner in 9 inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board challenging the validity of 8 patents, and over 100 claims. Final decisions in all IPR proceedings held all claims unpatentable, resulting in a dismissal of the underlying litigation and a complete victory for Square.
  • GlobalFoundries successfully defended as petitioner in 27 IPR proceedings that challenged the validity of 275 claims of seven patents. Final decisions in all proceedings held all claims unpatentable, and resulting in a dismissal of the underlying litigation and a complete victory for GlobalFoundries.
  • Walmart successfully defended as petitioner in 5 IPR proceedings before the PTAB that resulted in a favorable settlement for Walmart. Other co-petitioners continued the IPR proceedings and achieved a complete victory.
  • American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Unified Patents, Bayer Cropscience, and others, lead counsel successfully representing clients in PTAB proceedings, including IPR, post grant review, and covered business method proceedings, all of which resulted in settlement or final decisions favorable for our clients.
  • Carl Zeiss Meditec (“CZM”) represented in an inter partes review proceeding with CZM as the patent owner. CZM prevailed at the institution decision with a full denial of the petition for IPR, achieving a complete victory for CZM.
  • Marvell Semiconductor represented in a multiple patent infringement case in the District Court of Delaware.
  • MSI Computer Corp. represented in a district court litigation and parallel IPR before the PTAB, which resulted in a final decision in favor of MSI. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed on all grounds.
  • Unified Patents represented in multiple inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB, including against Contemporary Display that resulted in a final decision favoring Unified Patents on all grounds.
  • Bayer Cropscience represented in a post grant review proceeding before the PTAB that resulted in a favorable settlement for Bayer.
  • Technology company represented in a confidential international arbitration concerning allegations of breach of patent license. The arbitration settled at an advance stage of the proceeding, before hearing.
  • Technologies companies represented in various patent licensing negotiations against competitors and non-practicing entities.
  • Panasonic Corporation represented in patent infringement cases in the District Court of Delaware, David acted on claims relating to liquid crystal display (LCD) and semiconductor memory technologies. The actions settled favorably for Panasonic.
  • Panasonic Corporation represented in patent infringement cases before the International Trade Commission, relating to semiconductor processes, devices and microprocessors. The actions settled favorably for Panasonic.
  • Panasonic Corporation represented in a patent infringement case in the Northern District of California, relating to digital cameras, image sensors and website security. The actions settled favorably for Panasonic.

Office

Washington, D.C.

Allen & Overy LLP
1101 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.
20005

View office →

Qualifications

Professional

Admitted: District of Columbia Bar, 2002

Admitted: Virginia State Bar, 2001

Admitted: US Patent and Trademark Office: 2000

US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Academic

JD, Franklin Pierce Law Center, 2001

BSEE, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1998

Pro-bono experience:

  • The Shakespeare Globe represented as plaintiff in a copyright litigation in the District of New Jersey concerning unauthorized sales of The Globe’s performances in the United States.  After a lengthy battle, the parties settled favorably for The Globe.

Recognition

Awards & accolades

Intellectual Asset Management (IAM), 2015, 2017, 2019-2021

IAM Patent 1000

Managing Intellectual Property, 2019-2021

Patent Stars

Number 2 "Best-Performing Attorney" in representing inter-partes review (IPR) petitioners

Patexia Inc., 2018