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. Mr. Gindler has achieved extraordinary trial outcomes for both plaintiffs and defendants, including a $302-million verdict for breach of a research and license agreement, as well as defeating a $217-million damages claim where liability had already been established in an earlier trial handled by a different law firm.

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. Mr. Gindler was named the 2017 California General Patent Litigator of the Year at the annual LMG Life Sciences Awards. The previous year, he received the 2016 Patent Impact Case of the Year Award at the annual LMG Life Sciences Awards for his work on Ariosa Diagnostics v Sequenom. In 2014 and 2015, 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 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. Secured a complete victory for Genentech in responding to petitions for inter partes review (IPR) in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of three patents relating to methods of using rituximab, one of the largest-selling treatments for cancer and rheumatoid arthritis. Irell persuaded the PTAB not to institute an IPR on one of the three patents. After the PTAB instituted IPRs on the other two patents, Boerhringer Ingelheim requested entry of adverse judgment against it on both patents shortly before Mr. Gindler was scheduled to take the deposition of its expert.
  • Celltrion v. Genentech; Pfizer v. Genentech; and Sandoz v. Genentech. Currently defending Genentech in connection with 15 IPR petitions in the PTAB for multiple patents relating to methods of using Genentech’s blockbuster drug, rituximab. The petitioners are competitors who have filed, or plan to file, for regulatory approval to market biosimilar versions of rituximab under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
  • PDL BioPharma v. Merck. Secured a $19.5-million lump-sum payment from Merck to settle PDL BioPharma’s lawsuit filed in the District of New Jersey alleging that Merck’s manufacture of its cancer drug Keytruda infringed a foundational patent relating to the humanization of recombinant antibodies. The case settled little more than one year after it was filed, following the claim construction hearing.
  • Ariosa Diagnostics v. Sequenom. Secured a complete victory for 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), Irell was successful on an early summary judgment motion that invalidated Sequenom’s patent for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter. The decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in a closely-watched appeal.
  • Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. ZOLL Medical Corp. Defeated a $217-million damages claim for ZOLL’s infringement of defibrillator technology patents, and secured jury verdict of no willful infringement. Irell was retained for the damages phase after ZOLL was found to infringe in an earlier liability trial handled by another law firm. Irell initially secured multiple appellate victories for ZOLL on the liability verdict, including overturning the jury verdict that several asserted patent claims were not invalid as anticipated. On remand, Philips sought $217 million on its infringement claims against ZOLL, and ZOLL sought $3.3 million on its infringement counterclaims against Philips. The jury awarded $10.4 million to Philips and $3.3 million to ZOLL, resulting in a net verdict of $7.1 million to Philips.
  • Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. ZOLL Lifecor Corp. Currently representing ZOLL Lifecor in a patent infringement case pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania involving external defibrillator technology. Irell recently won an important Daubert motion excluding critical parts of the opinion of Philips’s damages expert. A trial date is expected to be set for 2018.
  • Bio-Rad Laboratories et al. v. 10x Genomics. Currently representing 10x Genomics in a patent infringement suit filed in the District of Delaware relating to methods of preparing DNA samples for sequencing involving the use of microfluidic technology. Trial is scheduled for April 2018.
  • Illumina and Verinata Health v. Ariosa Diagnostics. Currently representing Ariosa Diagnostics in three 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. The litigation also involves Ariosa’s counterclaims that Illumina breached the parties’ Sale and Supply Agreement for sequencing equipment and supplies by filing suit against Ariosa in derogation of the rights granted under that agreement. Irell defeated Illumina’s multiple efforts to dismiss Ariosa’s counterclaims, including a motion to compel arbitration. Trial is scheduled for January 2018.
  • PDL BioPharma v. Genentech and F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Represented PDL BioPharma in a Nevada state court action alleging breach of a 2003 settlement agreement that, among other things, barred Genentech from challenging the validity of PDL patent rights. After extensive discovery and motion practice, the case was stayed 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. Details about the financial terms of 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 et al. v. Whitehead Institute for BioMedical Research et al. Represented Alnylam and Max Planck Institute in a complex patent dispute in the District of Massachusetts concerning rights to fundamental technology covered in two patent families 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. Secured a complete victory on summary judgment for Alnylam, Max Planck Institute, Whitehead Institute and Massachusetts Institute of Technology in a lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts alleging that a University of Utah professor should have been included as an inventor on patents in the field of RNA interference co-owned by defendants. In this case, Irell represented 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 v. CIBA Vision. Represented CooperVision in multiple lawsuits in multiple forums (District of Delaware and 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 filed in the Eastern District of Texas 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 Southern and Northern Districts 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 Western District of Washington, the Western District of Pennsylvania and the District of Minnesota, among many others. Mr. Gindler also supervises litigation with an international dimension, working with lawyers overseas in complex cross-border 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 Antaeus Theatre Company. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of 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, the largest non-profit theatre organization in the country. She is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Opera and The Music Center.

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