David Gindler specializes in intellectual property litigation and licensing, with an emphasis in complex patent litigation. While highly regarded for his expertise in life sciences matters, Mr. Gindler’s work spans a broad array of industries and technologies, ranging from biotechnology, medical devices, computer architecture, microprocessor design, and advanced semiconductor materials.

The Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal named Mr. Gindler one of California's “Top IP Litigators” in 2008, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. He received the 2016 Patent Impact Case of the Year Award at the fourth annual LMG Life Sciences Awards for his work on Ariosa Diagnostics v Sequenom. In 2015 and 2014, Mr. Gindler was also recognized by Law360 as a “Life Sciences MVP.” He was named to the Los Angeles Business Journal’s 2012 list highlighting “Who’s Who in L.A. Law: Angelenos to Know in Intellectual Property Law.” Mr. Gindler appears in Chambers USA as a “Leading Individual” in Intellectual Property, Patent and Life Sciences Law. According to Chambers, his clients praise him for being "an incredible lawyer; really smart and driven, and incredibly focused on achieving his clients' goals.” Mr. Gindler also appears in LMG Life Sciences as a “Life Sciences Star”; Managing Intellectual Property's IP Stars; The International Who’s Who of Life Sciences Lawyers; Southern California Super Lawyers and The Best Lawyers in America in Intellectual Property Law.

Mr. Gindler has represented both established and emerging commercial and non-profit organizations, including Genentech, ZOLL Medical Corporation, Ariosa Diagnostics, 10X Genomics, CooperVision, PDL BioPharma, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Aon Corporation, Columbia University, Arizona State University, and City of Hope. 

Mr. Gindler was one of the principal trial attorneys in City of Hope v. Genentech, in which Irell & Manella obtained a $302 million compensatory damages award for failure to pay royalties owed on patents relating to fundamental technology that helped to create the biotechnology industry. The $302 million compensatory damages award was upheld by both the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court, and is the largest jury verdict ever affirmed in a published California appellate decision.

Mr. Gindler is also highly regarded for representing technology, entertainment, and multimedia companies and leading financial institutions in hotly contested matters concerning the protection of trade secrets and related rights. He frequently litigates cases requiring prompt injunctive relief to prevent misappropriation of trade secrets and proprietary information, as well as cases involving allegations of employee raiding and unfair competition. He has handled matters on behalf of a diverse group of clients, including MTV Networks, Paramount Pictures, Merrill Lynch, and Credit Suisse First Boston.

Recent Representative Matters

  • Boehringer Ingelheim v. Genentech. Currently representing Genentech in responding to petitions for inter partes review in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of three patents relating to methods of using rituximab, one the largest selling biologic treatments for cancer and rheumatoid arthritis. Petitioner Boehringer Ingelheim is currently running clinical trials on a biosimilar version of rituximab that is expected to be the subject of an application for FDA approval under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
  • RainDance Technologies et al. v. 10X Genomics. Currently representing 10X Genomics in a patent litigation suit filed in the District of Delaware relating to methods of preparing DNA samples for sequencing through the use of microfluidic technology.
  • Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. Represented Ariosa Diagnostics in a declaratory judgment action filed in the Northern District of California against Sequenom. After initially defeating Sequenom’s effort to secure a preliminary injunction to enjoin Ariosa from selling its Harmony Prenatal Test (an affordable, highly accurate, non-invasive blood test to assess the risk of fetal chromosomal abnormalities), Ariosa was successful on an early summary judgment motion that invalidated Sequenom’s patent for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter. The decision gave Ariosa a complete victory and is among the first district rulings invalidating a diagnostic patent in the life sciences field on Section 101 grounds. 
  • Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics. Currently representing Ariosa Diagnostics in two consolidated patent infringement suits in the Northern District of California which, like the action involving Sequenom, seek to enjoin Ariosa from selling its innovative non-invasive test for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Ariosa persuaded the district court to stay both cases, involving three patents, pending appeals from decisions in inter partes reviews of two of the patents and an ongoing inter partes review of the third patent.
  • Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. ZOLL Medical Corp. and Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. ZOLL Lifecor Corp. Currently representing ZOLL Medical Corp. in two cases pending in the District of Massachusetts and ZOLL Lifecor Corp. in a case pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania, in which both ZOLL entities have been sued for patent infringement relating to external defibrillator technology. After Irell took over the cases from other counsel in the wake of a loss on the liability phase in one of the two Massachusetts cases, ZOLL was able to persuade the Court to stay the damages phase of the case pending the parties’ cross-appeals of the liability verdict and then successfully negotiated a settlement of the other Massachusetts case. The Pennsylvania case is ongoing and a trial date is expected to be set for 2016.
  • PDL BioPharma, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Represented PDL BioPharma in this action filed in Nevada state court alleging breach of a 2003 settlement agreement that, among other things, barred Genentech from taking any action to challenge the validity of certain PDL patent rights. After extensive discovery and motion practice, the case was stayed by agreement of the parties pending Genentech and Roche’s interlocutory appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court of a trial court order granting PDL’s motion to compel them to produce critical documents withheld on grounds of privilege. The case settled during the appeal, with Genentech entering into amended license agreements with PDL. Certain details about the settlement can be found in PDL’s public disclosures.
  • MedImmune v. Genentech and City of Hope; Centocor, Inc. v. Genentech and City of Hope; Bristol Myers Squibb v. Genentech and City of Hope. Represented City of Hope in a series of declaratory judgment actions attacking patents co-owned by Genentech and City of Hope that cover fundamental processes relating to recombinant antibodies. All cases were resolved on favorable terms with no findings of invalidity, unenforceability or non-infringement.
  • Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Whitehead Institute for BioMedical Research, et al. Represented Alnylam and Max Planck Institute in complex patent dispute in the District of Massachusetts concerning rights to fundamental technology covered in two families of patent applications in the field of RNA interference. Successfully resolved the case on favorable terms through a creative settlement that used co-ownership rights and other cooperative mechanisms to overcome PTO rejections in both patent application families.
  • University of Utah v. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, et al. Currently representing Alnylam, Max Planck Institute, Whitehead, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and University of Massachusetts in a lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts over inventorship rights to patents in the RNA interference field co-owned by the defendants. In this case, Irell & Manella represents all of the parties involved in the lawsuit listed above, including the parties who were adverse to Alnylam and Max Planck Institute in that lawsuit.
  • Aon Corporation v. Guy Carpenter & Company. Represented Aon Corporation, one of the world’s largest insurance and financial services companies, in a declaratory judgment action filed in the Southern District of New York relating to a competitor’s patent relating to graphical representations of insured risks and related weather and catastrophe data. Successfully negotiated a settlement of the litigation significantly in advance of trial.
  • CooperVision, Inc. v. CIBA Vision, Inc. Represented CooperVision in multiple lawsuits in multiple forums (the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas) in actions involving cross-allegations of infringement of patents relating to certain core technologies used in contact lenses. CooperVision successfully resolved the case through an innovative cross-licensing arrangement.
  • DataTreasury Corporation v. NCR Corporation. Represented NCR in a patent infringement suit relating to electronic processing of financial transactions. Achieved very early settlement on favorable terms, while multiple defendants in related cases involving the same patents reportedly paid eight-figure settlements.

Although he resides in Southern California, Mr. Gindler practices on a nation-wide basis. He has litigated cases in the Northern District of California, the Eastern District of Texas, the Southern District of New York, the District of Massachusetts, the District of Delaware, the District of Oregon, the District of Minnesota, among many others. Mr. Gindler also supervises litigation with an international dimension, working with lawyers overseas on both commercial and patent disputes.

Mr. Gindler is an active supporter of the non-profit performing arts community. He currently serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Master Chorale and the Antaeus Theatre Company. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, the Performing Arts Center of Los Angeles County (commonly referred to as The Music Center), and Beth Morrison Projects. His wife, Kiki Ramos Gindler, serves as President of the Board of Directors of Center Theatre Group, one of the largest non-profit theatre organizations in the country.

Read More
View More
View More
View More
View More

Professional Activities

  • Member of the Litigation, Intellectual Property Law, and Labor and Employment Law Sections of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of California, and the Los Angeles County Bar Association.
View More
View More

Bar & Court Admissions

  • California
  • United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States District Courts—Central, Southern, Eastern, and Northern Districts of California