David Gindler serves as managing partner of Irell & Manella LLP. His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and licensing, with an emphasis in complex patent litigation. While nationally recognized by Chambers USA for his expertise in life sciences matters, David’s work spans a broad array of industries and technologies. He 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.
David has represented both established and emerging commercial and nonprofit organizations, including Genentech, Biogen, ZOLL Medical Corporation, CooperVision, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, PDL BioPharma, Aon Corporation, Arizona State University and City of Hope.
David was one of the principal trial lawyers in City of Hope v. Genentech, in which Irell & Manella LLP obtained a $302 million compensatory damages award for failure to pay royalties owed on patents relating to fundamental technology that helped create the biotechnology industry. This award was upheld by both the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. It is the largest jury verdict ever affirmed in a published California appellate decision.
With a national practice, David has litigated cases in various U.S. district courts, including 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 others. He also supervises litigation with an international dimension, collaborating with legal partners across the globe in complex cross-border patent disputes.
David is an active supporter of the nonprofit performing arts community. He currently serves as chairman of the board of directors Antaeus Theatre Company. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, Los Angeles Master Chorale and Beth Morrison Projects. His wife, Kiki Ramos Gindler, serves as president of the board of directors of Center Theatre Group, the largest nonprofit theater organization in the country. She is also a member of the board of directors of the Los Angeles Opera and the Performing Arts Center of Los Angeles County (commonly referred to as the Music Center).
- Genentech and Biogen v. Celltrion and Teva; Genentech and Biogen v. Sandoz. Currently representing Genentech and Biogen in patent litigation under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act relating to Genentech’s blockbuster drug, Rituxan. Celltrion and Sandoz have filed applications with the FDA to market a biosimilar version of Rituxan. Genentech and Biogen have filed lawsuits against Celltrion and Sandoz alleging infringement of patents related to methods of making and using Rituxan.
- 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 David 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 16 IPR petitions in the PTAB for multiple patents relating to methods of using Genentech’s drug, Rituxan. 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. No IPR was even instituted in 12 of these proceedings; voluntarily dismissals were requested by petitioners in two of the proceedings; decisions were issued in two proceedings rejecting all arguments that any claims were unpatentable; and two proceedings are awaiting final decisions.
- PDL BioPharma v. Merck. Secured a $19.5 million lump-sum payment from Merck to settle PDL BioPharma’s lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for 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 was 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 U.S. District Court for 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 U. S. Court of Appeals for 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. Obtained a favorable outcome for ZOLL Lifecor in a patent infringement case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania involving external defibrillator technology. Irell won an important Daubert motion excluding critical parts of the opinion of Philips’s damages expert. After that victory, and the related victory discussed above at the damages trial for ZOLL Medical, this case settled in December 2017.
- 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 noninfringement.
- 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 U.S. District Court for 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 USPTO 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 U.S. District Court for 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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to a competitor’s patent in connection with 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 (the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. District Court for 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 filed in the U.S. District Court for 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.
Honors & Awards
- Named one of California's "Top IP Litigators" by the Daily Journal (2008, 2014-2019)
- Recognized in Chambers USA as a “Leading Individual” in the areas of 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." (2008-2019)
- Honored by LMG Life Sciences Awards as "California General Patent Litigator of the Year" (2017) and with the "Patent Impact Case of the Year Award" (2016) for his work on Ariosa Diagnostics v. Sequenom
- Recognized by Law360 as a "Life Sciences MVP" (2014, 2015)
- Named to the Los Angeles Business Journal's "Who's Who in L.A. Law: Angelenos to Know in Intellectual Property Law" list (2012)
- Recognized by LMG Life Sciences as a "Life Sciences Star" (2016-2018)
- Named among Managing Intellectual Property's IP Stars (2015, 2018-2019)
- Recognized in The International Who's Who of Life Sciences Lawyers (2017)
- Named to the Southern California Super Lawyers list (2004-2019)
- Recognized by the Best Lawyers in America for intellectual property law (2011-2019)
- "3rd Annual Spring Conference," Life-Sciences Patent Network North America (April 25, 2019)
- "2012 Year in Review: Hear What the Experts Report on Their Specialized Areas of Law," Association of Business Trial Lawyers (January 29, 2013)
- "The Impact of Myriad on the Patentability of DNA Sequences in the US," 21st Forum on Biotech Patenting (October 6, 2011)
- Member, 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
UCLA School of Law (J.D., 1984)
Pomona College (B.A., Philosophy and Economics, 1981)
- U.S. District Court for the Central, Southern, Eastern and Northern Districts of California
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Federal Circuits
- U.S. Supreme Court