Partner
David Mroz practices all aspects of patent law in a wide spectrum of technologies. He represents innovative companies in complex, high-risk litigations at both the trial and appellate levels and knows how to strategically build and present a client's case to a judge or jury.
In U.S. district courts, David has tried cases to verdict and managed both the liability and damages phases of patent litigation. He has examined witnesses at jury trials, argued at motion and claim construction proceedings, drafted briefs on dispositive issues, taken depositions, and prepared corporate and expert witnesses to testify. David's experience extends to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), where he has litigated at all stages of investigations, including trial.
David has also argued and drafted numerous briefs at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where he previously served as a clerk. He also clerked at the Eastern District of Virginia. At the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), David has procured patents through prosecution and successfully represented parties in post-grant proceedings such as inter partes reviews (IPR) and ex parte reexaminations.
In addition to intellectual property disputes, David works with clients to strategically develop and license patent portfolios worldwide, often with the goal of avoiding or ending litigation. He also helps clients navigate competitors' patent rights by providing opinions of counsel on patent infringement, patent validity, and other intellectual property issues.
NOTE: No aspect of these rankings has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Further information on methodologies is available via these links.
Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology
18-2003, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, Prost, Chen
Represented patent owner Aqua Products/Fluidra in appeal involving robotic pool cleaners; successfully petitioned Federal Circuit for en banc review of statutory burden of proof issue; en banc court changed legal standard and vacated invalidity ruling against Fluidra.
15-1177, Fed. Cir., Judges Chen, Dyk, Hughes, Lourie, Moore, Newman, O'Malley, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Wallach
Maglula, Ltd. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al
Represented Maglula Ltd. in a district court litigation alleging that Amazon committed patent, trademark, and copyright infringement through its sale of counterfeit consumer products. After Maglula won all claim construction disputes, and after the Court denied Amazon’s summary judgment motion and found that “Amazon’s attempts to avoid liability” would “have minimal impact before a jury,” the parties entered into an agreement and the case was dismissed.
1:19-cv-01570, E.D. Va., Judge O'Grady
Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP
12-1412, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Reyna, Schall
Omega Patents LLC v. BMW of North America LLC
22-2012, Fed. Cir., Judges Hughes, Reyna, Stark
IPR2021-00181, PTAB, Judges Deshpande, Hagy, Wieker
1:20-cv-01907, N.D. Ga., Judge Grimberg
1:21-cv-00030, D. Del., Judge Bryson
Finnegan represented Emergy, Inc., d/b/a Meati Foods in a trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and correction of inventorship case against The Better Meat Company (BMC) and Augustus Pattillo involving alternative meat made from mycelium.
Emergy alleged that Augustus Pattillo stole its trade secrets on the cultivation and production of mycelium that he learned while working as a lab technician for Emergy’s founders, misused them in his work with BMC, breached his nondisclosure agreement with Emergy, and improperly filed patent applications on Emergy’s technology and assigned them to BMC.
BMC filed claims of tortious interference and unfair competition against Emergy, which Emergy succeeded in striking under California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute. After prevailing under the anti-SLAPP statute, Emergy was statutorily entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for defending against BMC’s stricken claims of tortious interference and unfair competition
Early in the litigation, Emergy defeated BMC’s motion to dismiss Emergy’s trade secret misappropriation and breach of implied contract claims. Emergy later defeated BMC’s motion for summary judgment on Emergy’s trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and breach of implied contract claims. The case settled soon after the Court issued its summary judgment ruling.
2-21-cv-02338, E.D. Cal., Judge Mueller
2-21-cv-02417, E.D. Cal., Judge Mueller
Articles
Maglula Beats Amazon in Counterfeit Claims Maglula Beats Amazon in Counterfeit Claims
December 29, 2021
Haaretz Annual Tech BookArticles
The Federal Circuit’s Travel Sentry Case Broadens Divided Infringement Standard in a Way that Makes Method Claims More Viable in Litigation The Federal Circuit’s Travel Sentry Case Broadens Divided Infringement Standard in a Way that Makes Method Claims More Viable in Litigation
July/August 2018
IP LitigatorArticles
Thinking Ahead on Standing: Using Evidence from Outside the License Agreement to Overcome Bare Licensee Status Thinking Ahead on Standing: Using Evidence from Outside the License Agreement to Overcome Bare Licensee Status
March/April 2018
IP LitigatorArticles
Venue Challenges After TC Heartland: Move Fast or Risk Waiver Venue Challenges After TC Heartland: Move Fast or Risk Waiver
January/February 2018
IP Litigator"David Mroz and Brian Kacedon are both very engaged, friendly, business-oriented and focused on enabling opportunity for clients."
The Legal 500 U.S.
"David Mroz and Brian Kacedon are both very engaged, friendly, business-oriented and focused on enabling opportunity for clients."
The Legal 500 U.S.
Press Release
Finnegan Secures Another Patent Victory for BMW Group in the District of Delaware Finnegan Secures Another Patent Victory for BMW Group in the District of Delaware
February 27, 2024
Announcement
Finnegan Announces 2022 Mentors of the Year Finnegan Announces 2022 Mentors of the Year
December 30, 2022
Commentary
How Marking Mishaps Mess up Patent Litigation Strategies How Marking Mishaps Mess up Patent Litigation Strategies
May 13, 2022
Managing Intellectual PropertyCommentary
A Case Over the Sale of Counterfeits on Amazon May Have Implications for Fashion A Case Over the Sale of Counterfeits on Amazon May Have Implications for Fashion
January 7, 2022
The Fashion LawMedia Mention
Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout Outs Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout Outs
May 21, 2021
The AmLaw Litigation DailyMedia Mention
Va. Judge Says Amazon Has No Hope in Counterfeiting Suit Va. Judge Says Amazon Has No Hope in Counterfeiting Suit
May 20, 2021
Law360Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.