• Share
  • Email
  • Print

Harold H. Davis, Jr.

Partner
+1.415.249.1008
Fax +1.415.882.8220
+1.202.778.9000
Fax +1.202.778.9100
Hal Davis is an intellectual property trial lawyer. His practice focuses on patent, trade secret, and unfair competition matters. He also specializes in representing Asia-based technology companies in various United States litigation matters.

Mr. Davis’ litigation experience includes representing computer design and manufacturing companies, semiconductor manufacturers, electronics providers, biotechnology research entities, computer software companies, telecommunications providers, and other technology companies in various actions in federal courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He also represents clients before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Mr. Davis’ intellectual property experience includes counseling clients on intellectual property protection, registration, licensing and management issues, and intellectual property development and investment. His licensing experience involves representing clients in patent, trademark and copyright licensing, intellectual property asset purchases and strategic partnerships. He also has consulted with clients on such topics as development of intellectual property security procedures, website development, and co-development and joint venture projects.

Professional Background

Prior to joining K&L Gates, Mr. Davis was a litigator for firms in Washington, D.C. and Chicago where he focused on complex intellectual property litigation.

Professional/Civic Activities

  • ITC Trial Lawyers Association
  • American Bar Association
  • Bar Association of San Francisco
  • International Trademark Association
  • Board of Directors for the Guardsmen (children’s charity)
  • Secretary and Board of Directors for the Gambari Fund (Japan relief charity)
  • “Developments in ITC Practice - Domestic Industry Requirements and Foreign Litigants in the ITC,” Boalt Hall Law School, July 16, 2013
  • “Cost Effective Defense Strategies,” ITC Trial Lawyers Association Section 337 Seminar for Chinese Enterprises, May 23-27, 2011 (Beijing, Nanjing, Shanghai, Guanzhou)
  • “International Intellectual Property Procurement,” National Chengchi University Presentation, March 15, 2011
  • “Patent Damages – Entire Market Value Rule,” National University Presentation, June 2009
Intellectual Property Litigation

Patent Infringement

ITC Litigation
  • In the matter of Certain Set-Top Boxes, Gateways, Bridges and Adapters and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-915 (USITC) — Represented respondent Wistron NeWeb against ViXs in patent litigation involving MoCA related technology.
  • In the matter of Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-910 (USITC) — Represented respondent Wistron against CrestaTech in patent litigation involving TV Tuners.
  • In the matter of Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-853 (USITC) — Represented respondent Acer in patent litigation involving microprocessor design; finding of no violation, affirmed by Commission.
  • In the matter of Certain Computer and Computer Peripheral Devices, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-841 (USITC) — Served as lead trial counsel for respondent Acer in patent litigation involving flash memory card readers; finding of no violation, affirmed by Commission.
  • In the matter of Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. 337-TA-803 (USITC) — Represented respondent Hynix against Intellectual Ventures in DRAM and NAND flash-related memory patents.
  • In the matter of Certain Coenzyme Q10 Products and Methods of Making Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-790 (USITC) — Represented respondent Shenzhou at trial in patents involving production of Coenzyme Q10; finding of no violation by ALJ and affirmed by Commission.
  • In the matter of Certain Notebook Computer Products and Components, Inv. No. 337-TA-705 (USITC) — Represented respondent Wistron Corporation against Toshiba Corporation involving various laptop computer patents. Successful settlement reached after filing of pre-hearing briefing.
  • In the matter of Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drivers, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-619 (USITC) — Represented respondent Apacer against SanDisk; finding of no violation.

District Court Litigation
  • Rockstar Consortium US LP et al. v. Asustek Computer Inc. et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-894 (E.D. Tex.) — Represented Asus in patent litigation involving various technologies associated with Android Operating System Platform.
  • Patent Harbor v. HP et al., Case No. 6:13-cv-00103-LED (E.D. Tex.) — Represent Hewlett-Packard in patent litigation involving video authoring software. Successful settlement reached during discovery.
  • Enova v. Western Digital et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00004 (D. Del.) — Represented Western Digital in patent litigation involving encryption technology. Successful settlement reached before trial.
  • Acer v. Technology Properties Limited et al., Case No. 5:08-cv-00877 — Represented Acer and Gateway in a declaratory action. Technology Properties Limited has counterclaimed for patent infringement and asserted five patents from the Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio against Acer and Gateway. The patents concern microprocessor design and operation.
  • Toshiba Corp. v. Wistron Corp., Civil Action No. 8:10-cv-00074-SVW-MLG (C.D. Cal.) — Represented Wistron in district court in laptop patent dispute. Case settled favorably for client.
  • Phillip M. Adams & Assoc. LLC. v. Wistron Corp., (D. Wyo. 2011) — Represented Wistron and AOpen in district court in laptop patent dispute involving floppy disc controllers. Motion to dismiss granted for clients.
  • DRAM Technology v. America II Group et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-45 (J. Ward) — Represented ESMT, semiconductor design company, in patent infringement action relating to DRAM patents.
  • LSI/Agere v. Xilinx, Case No. 09 Civ. 9717 (S.D.N.Y) (J. Rakoff) — Represented Xilinx in a patent infringement action involving twenty patents relating to field-programmable gate array (FPGA) and other related technologies.
  • Typhoon Touch v. Dell, Civil Action No. 6:07-cv-546 (E.D. Texas) (J. Davis) — Represented Dell and Lenovo in a patent infringement action involving two touch screen patents. Achieved favorable claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement.
  • Global Innovations v. Acer America Corp., Case No. 09-20127 (S.D. Fla.) (J. Moreno) and Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-00198 (E.D. Texas) (J. Folsom) — Represented Acer, Alienware, Dell, Gateway, and HP in patent infringement litigation concerning two computer security patents. Achieved successful settlement.
  • Represented semiconductor manufacturer with patent license negotiation involving hundreds of patents. Successfully reached negotiated agreement that prevented litigation.
  • CPUMate v. Acer America Corp. et al., Case No. 08-cv-01865 (D.N.J.) (J. Wolfson) — Represented Acer and Wistron in patent infringement litigation relating to heat sink technology. Achieved dismissal of clients.
  • Universal Tech., Inc. v. Frogger, Civ. Action No. 0:10-cv-00075-JNE-JSM (D. Minn. 2010) — Represented Frogger, golf equipment manufacturer, in district court in golf towel patent dispute. Case settled favorably for client.
  • Halloran v. Frogger, (D. Mass. 2010) — Represented Frogger, golf equipment manufacturer, in district court in golf brush patent dispute. Case settled favorably for client after filing of motion for summary judgment.
  • Krinner v. TerraSmart LLC, (M.D. Fla. 2011) — Represented TerraSmart, solar power equipment manufacturer, in patent dispute over earth screws. Case settled favorably for client.
  • Gellyfish v. Acer et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-170 (E.D. Tex.) — Represented Acer and Gateway in a patent infringement action relating to handpads on laptop computers.
  • Wistron v. Samsung Electronic Co., Case No. C 07-04748 VRW (N.D. Cal) — Represented Wistron in a patent infringement action where Samsung had alleged infringement of three patents relating to computer keyboard hot key functions, battery charging power-saving methods, and data storage and retrieval methods. The parties entered into a patent license agreement on a mutually acceptable basis, including a patent cross license, and the lawsuits between them were dismissed.
  • Wacom Co. v. Hanwang Technology Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-05701-RJB (W.D. Wash.) — Represented Hanwang Technology, a leading Beijing based consumer electronics company, in a patent infringement suit involving electronic drawing tablets. Obtained summary judgment, in part, that invalidated key asserted patent based on prior art he uncovered during litigation. Shortly thereafter, the parties settled the case.
  • Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Acer et al.; Case No. 2:07-cv-00222 (E.D. Tex.) — Represented Acer in a patent infringement case filed by relating to wireless telecommunications routers. Linux dismissed its claims against Acer.
  • Represented international corporation in patent infringement litigation involving narrowcasting and digital media networks
  • Ichor Medical Sys., Inc. v. Richard Walters et al., Case No. 99CV 1332 J (S.D. Cal.) — Represented trade secret and patent infringement defendant in matter involving medical devices, biomedical treatments, and licensing issues involving electroporation technology.
  • Insight Dev. Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 4424 (Fed. Cir. 2002) — Handled patent infringement and trade secret appeal to Federal Circuit involving printing and file sharing technology.

Federal Circuit Litigation
  • Typhoon Touch v. Dell, Case No. 2009-1589 (Fed. Cir.) — Represented Dell and Lenovo in appeal to Federal Circuit on favorable claim construction ruling.
  • In re Porauto Industrial Co., Ltd., Case No. 2014-130 (Fed. Cir.) — Represented Kabo Tool in successful defense against mandamus.
  • Typhoon Touch v. Dell, Case No. 2009-1589 (Fed. Cir.) — Represented Dell and Lenovo in appeal to Federal Circuit on favorable claim construction ruling.

Trademark Infringement
  • Torostek LLC v. Sapido et al., Case No. 5:07cv1488 (C.D. Cal.) — Achieved successful settlement in trademark infringement matter over “matrix” term.
  • Shop4Tech.com v. Sapido et al., Case No. 5:07-cv1489 (C.D. Cal.) — Achieved successful settlement in trademark infringement matter over .
  • Represented mobile media device company in trademark infringement action involving advertising campaign by smart phone manufacturer.
  • The Wine Group LLC and Golden State Vintners v. Keswick Winery et al., Case No. 06-2055 JW/PVT (N.D. Cal.) (March 2006) — Achieved successful settlement in trademark infringement matter over “Edgewood” term.
  • Rebel Wine Co. LLC v. The Wine Group LLC, Opposition No. 91169052 (T.T.A.B. 2006) — Achieved successful settlement in opposition over “Wine Bandits” term.
  • Global Granite & Marble LLC v. Global Granite Stone & Supply LLC, Case No. 05-02374-BBD-dkv (W.D. Tenn. 2005) — Achieved successful settlement in trademark infringement matter over “Global Granite” term.
  • Societe Des Hotels Meridien et al. v. LaSalle Hotel Operating Partnership, L.P., 380 F.3d 126 (2nd Cir. 2004) — Assisted in representation of a hotel and hotel property management company in appeal to Second Circuit involving Lanham Act claims of reverse passing off.
  • Assisted in representation of movie and television studies in various trademark suits involving movie and television features.

Copyright Infringement
  • Assisted in representation of a record label and executives in copyright infringement of sound recordings case involving international copyright, contributory infringement, and vicarious liability issues.
  • Assisted in representation of a medical software company; summary judgment granted in copyright infringement of software based on temporary RAM copying theory.

Trade Secret/Trade Dress/Counterfeiting
  • Ventria Bioscience v. Yang — Represented Ventria in trade secret action against former employee. Achieved successful settlement.
  • Represented executives against former employer in theft of trade secret and breach of duty claims.
  • Represented Silicon Valley technology company against former employer in trade secret misappropriation action; injunction obtained against former employee.
  • Amphenol Corp. v. Aero Electric Connector et al., Case No. 06-5340 (C.D. Cal. 2006) — Represented client in trade secret and unfair competition lawsuit.
  • Teligent, Inc. v. Clara Vista Corp. et al., Case No. 00-CV-1311 (E.D. Va. 2000) — Assisted in representation of satellite telecommunications firm in multi-million dollar lawsuit involving trade secret, false advertising, and Lanham Act claims.
  • Represented major movie studios in DVD counterfeiting case.
  • Represented corporate executive in criminal trade secret investigation involving Silicon Valley technology firm.

Complex Commercial Litigation
  • Won a defense verdict on behalf of a private equity finance company and its owner after a four-month jury trial where plaintiffs sought more than $200 million in damages.
  • Osanitsch v. Marconi PLC, Case No. 05-03988-CRBW (N.D. Cal. 2005) — Won dismissal of fraud and breach of contract action on behalf of large, international telecommunications company.
  • Represented pharmaceutical company in third-party discovery dispute involving multidistrict tort litigation and successfully protected disclosure of trade secrets.
  • Represented foreign-based technology firm in price fixing investigation.
  • PSINet Consulting Solutions Knowledge Servs., Inc. v. Saudi Petro Gas Co. Ltd., Civ. No. 01-320, 2001 WL 869616 (D. Minn. Aug. 1, 2001) — Represented PSINet in breach of contract suit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
  • Sea-Land Serv. Inc. et al. v. United States, 239 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001) — Assisted in representation of U.S. shipyard in customs appeal to U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit.
  • Foggy Bottom Ass’n v. Board of Zoning Adjustment et al., 791 A.2d 64 (D.C. Ct. App. 2002) — Represented amicus in successful appeal on behalf of GW Hospital involving environmental and zoning issues relating to construction of new hospital; amicus brief quoted with approval from court.