David T. Okano is an associate in the Litigation practice and is based in the firm's Palo Alto office. His practice focuses on patent litigation in district courts, appeals to the Federal Circuit, and post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He is a go-to senior associate in complex patent and trade secret disputes for developing and implementing case-wide strategy, managing discovery, preparing dispositive motions and appellate briefing, and handling depositions of key expert witnesses (both technical and financial) and 30(b)(6) fact witnesses.
Mr. Okano’s trial experience includes cross-examining lead technical infringement experts and arguing critical evidentiary motions. He has also delivered oral arguments in IPR hearings at the PTAB, and second-chaired oral arguments for appeals to the Federal Circuit.
Mr. Okano previously served as a law clerk to the Honorable Raymond T. Chen of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and practiced at a large intellectual property boutique. While in law school, Mr. Okano interned at the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, and under supervision of attorneys in the Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney in Lynchburg, Virginia, prosecuted misdemeanors in general district court and misdemeanor appeals in circuit court.
Before practicing law, Mr. Okano gained experience as a systems engineer at a large defense contractor and a consultant at a risk management consulting firm.
- University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 2011.
- University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science, M.S. and B.S. in Systems and Information Engineering (Rodman Scholar).
- Pixmarx LLC v. TikTok Inc. (W.D. Tex.): Represented TikTok in multi-patent dispute. Through aggressive early case strategy, obtained favorable settlement.
- BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc. (C.D. Cal.): Representing Snap, led defensive discovery and prepared summary judgment motions that invalidated four key patents under § 101, resulting in eventual dismissal with prejudice of remaining patents. Federal Circuit issued opinion affirming invalidation of all patents.
- Canon Inc. v. TCL Electronics (E.D. Tex.): Represented Canon in six-patent suit relating to Internet TV technology. Responsible for day-to-day management of complex third-party and foreign discovery and offensive infringement case. Case settled after favorable Markman ruling and key discovery victories.
- Represented large mobile phone manufacturer in patent litigation involving voice recognition technology (N.D. Cal.). Responsible for Markman brief resulting in asserted claims being found indefinite and not infringed, a finding which was affirmed in relevant part by the Federal Circuit.
- IPA Technology Inc. v. Sony Corp., LG Electronics., Huawei, et al. (D. Del): Represented numerous phone manufacturers in patent litigation involving SRI's voice recognition technology. Responsible for Rule 12(b)(6) motion that invalidated independent claims of each asserted patent under §101. In follow-on case, filed successful Rule 12(b)(6) motion to invalidate all remaining 170+ claims of those patents.
- In re Certain Telecommunication Systems and Components Thereof (ITC); Xtera, Inc. v. Nokia et al. (W.D. Tex.): Represented Xtera in multiple forums, including as both complainant and respondent in multiple ITC investigations, in the district court, and at the PTAB. Deposed and defended key technical experts and 30(b)(6) witnesses, cross-examined technical experts and argued motions at ITC evidentiary hearing. Achieved favorable settlement with respondents and termination of investigation against Xtera on eve of hearing.
- Supercell Oy v. GREE, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Represented GREE in patent infringement suit relating to mobile gaming applications filed by its largest competitor as part of a worldwide patent dispute. Responsible for successful Rule 12(b)(6) motion that invalidated all claims of key asserted patent.
- 511 Innovations, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. (E.D. Tex.). Represented HTC in patent litigation relating to sensor technology. Responsible for summary judgment briefing and pre-trial motions and filings. Case settled favorably shortly before trial.
- Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC (E.D. Tex.). Represented AT&T in multi-defendant patent litigation relating to standards-essential cellular technology. Responsible for Daubert and dispositive motion briefing on behalf of joint defense group. AT&T obtained rare sever and stay shortly before trial.
- Fitbit, Inc. v. Aliphcom, Inc. (Jawbone): Represented Fitbit in multiple inter partes reviews challenging competitor's asserted patents. Delivered oral argument for patent in which the Board adopted all instituted grounds and invalidated all challenged claims.
Other selected representations:
- Represented leading medical device manufacturer in patent litigation relating to vacuum-controlled artificial limb prosthetics for transfemoral amputees (C.D. Cal.). Obtained denial of a motion for preliminary injunction. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, successfully defended denial of preliminary injunction and obtained a favorable, case-dispositive claim construction.
- Represented leading medical device manufacturer in patent litigation relating to microprocessor-controlled prosthetic limbs for transtibial amputees (D. Mass.). Obtained case-dispositive claim construction resulting in a favorable settlement for client that included a permanent injunction against competitor’s infringing product.
- Represented leading medical device manufacturer in patent litigation relating to powered, prosthetic knee technology (D. Mass.). Obtained favorable settlement for client, including a stipulation of noninfringement by client's accused product.
- Represented large global network gateway manufacturer in eight-patent suit relating to foundational Internet protocol technology against more than ten competitors (C.D. Cal.). Obtained favorable settlement for client shortly before trial..
- American Axle: Highlighting Divisions in the Federal Circuit on Section 101 Natural Law Jurisprudence - January 8th, 2021
- Berkheimer and Aatrix En Banc Denial: a Divided Federal Circuit on Alice Step Two - June 4th, 2018
- No Physical Place, No Regular and Established Place of Business: The Federal Circuit Strikes Down Judge Gilstrap’s Patent Venue Framework - September 25th, 2017
- Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.: Panel-dependency for § 101 Challenges at the 12(b)(6) Stage - August 23rd, 2017
- Reading the Tea Leaves from the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC Oral Argument - March 30th, 2017
Engagement & Publications
- Co-author, "American Axle: Highlighting Divisions in the Federal Circuit on Section 101 Natural Law Jurisprudence," Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1, January 2021 (cover article).
- Co-author, Berkheimer and Aatrix En Banc Denial: a Divided Federal Circuit on Alice Step Two, Lexology, June 4, 2018
- Co-author, No physical place, no regular and established place of business: the Federal Circuit strikes down Judge Gilstrap's patent venue framework, Lexology, Sept. 26, 2017.
- Co-author, Panel-dependent Fed. Cir. decisions for 101 challenges?, Law360 Expert Analysis, Aug. 24, 2017.
- Co-author, Reading the tea leaves from the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC oral argument, Lexology, Mar. 30, 2017.
- Co-presenter, Paul Hastings IP Academy 2017: Recent Developments in § 101 patent eligibility, July 19, 2017.
- Primary and co-author for numerous case updates in the Federal Circuit Bar Association Case Digest.
- Regularly quoted in news publications for Bloomberg Law and others.
- Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association.
- Member of the State Bar of California.
- Admitted to practice in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, Central District of California, Eastern District of Texas, and Western District of Texas, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.