David L. Fehrman

Partner

Los Angeles, 81 3 3214 6522

Tokyo, 81 3 3214 6522

Download vCard

Education

Vanderbilt University (B.E., 1974)
;
Washington University School of Law (J.D., 1977)

Practices

Patent Litigation

Patent and Trademark Office Trial Group

Patent Reexaminations

Bar Admissions

U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
California
Japan (Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi)

David Fehrman handles litigation, counseling, and adversarial Patent Office matters primarily related to electronics, semiconductor, electromechanical and software technologies. With his strong foundation in technology and patent prosecution, he brings a unique skill set and perspective to litigation matters. Often litigation is accompanied by either ex parte or inter partes reexamination proceedings, and Mr. Fehrman has been involved in more than 40 patent reexaminations involving litigation, and has obtained cancellation of the asserted claims in numerous cases, including both ex parte and inter partes. In most of these cases, the litigation was stayed pending reexamination, thus saving the clients substantial litigation fees. He has also successfully defended patents on behalf of patent owners. With the new inter partes review proceedings taking effect, Patent Office challenges to validity will become even more prevalent.

Mr. Fehrman has argued before the Federal Circuit and has been lead attorney in numerous interferences before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He drafted the patent and was one of the lead attorneys in the case of Odetics v. Storage Technology, which went through two successful appeals to the Federal Circuit and resulted in a $71 million verdict and a $100 million settlement for the patent owner. The Federal Circuit’s opinion is one of the most frequently cited cases relating to "means plus function" claim limitations.

Mr. Fehrman has worked in the consumer electronics area for more than 30 years. He has been involved in numerous litigation matters on behalf of clients such as Yamaha Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Warner Bros., Fox, NBC Universal, Paramount Studios, Fujitsu and Ricoh.

He has worked with substantially all major television manufacturers in numerous cases regarding V-Chip parental control technology and other television technology, and has authored a number of successful summary judgment motions and appeal briefs. He has also worked on numerous matters for movie studios in cases relating to feature film editing, DVD and Blu-Ray authoring and production and video compression including MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 video compression.

Mr. Fehrman is active on behalf of clients in various patent pools including MPEG-2 and DVD-6C licensing pools, which have hundreds of licensees for video compression and video disc technology. He is also involved in the submission and determination of essentiality with respect to various technical standards.

Printless Previews v. Twentieth Century Fox, et al.

(Central District of California). Represented numerous movie studios in patent infringement action relating to feature film editing. Filed two ex parte reexamination requests. Case stayed pending reexamination result. All claims rejected by the Patent Office and cancelled following an unsuccessful Federal Circuit appeal by the Patent Owner.

Patent Harbor v. Fox et al.

(Eastern District of Texas). Represented numerous media and entertainment companies in patent infringement suit involving DVD and Blu-ray authoring technologies and obtained favorable settlements.

Multimedia Patent Trust v. Disney et al.

(Southern District of California). Represented several large media and entertainment companies in patent infringement suit involving video compression and obtained favorable settlements.

MONKEYMedia v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.

(Western District of Texas). Currently representing numerous media and entertainment companies in patent infringement case involving DVD and Blu-ray technology. Filed reexamination requests on 4 patents; all claims stand rejected. Case stayed pending reexamination.

Cheetah Omni v. Samsung, et al.

(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Mitsubishi in a patent infringement case involving DLP televisions. Judgment was entered in Mitsubishi’s favor following a favorable claim construction, and affirmed on appeal.

Genoa Color Technologies, Ltd. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp. et al.

(Southern District of New York). Represented Mitsubishi in a patent infringement action involving DLP color display technology in televisions and projectors. Filed Inter partes reexamination request. All claims cancelled as a result of the reexamination.

Nissim Corp. v. Time Warner Inc., et al.

(Central District of California). Represented Time Warner, Warner Bros., and New Line Cinema in a patent infringement case involving several aspects of DVD technology. Filed several reexamination requests, all of which were granted favorable settlements.

Interactive Music Technology LLC v. Roland Corp. U.S., et al.

(Central District of California). Represented Yamaha in a patent infringement action relating to electronic keyboard instruments. Filed reexamination requests on the two asserted patents. Reexaminations concluded with all claims of both patents cancelled.

Amado v. Microsoft Corporation

(Central District of California). Represented individual software inventor in patent infringement trial against Microsoft Corp., resulting in a jury verdict for the inventor and an award of $6.9 million, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal. After a second appeal relating to post-verdict sales, Mr. Amado’s total award increased to $16 million. Successfully defended the patent in reexamination proceeding.

Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America Inc. v. Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd.

(Southern District of California). Represented Mitsubishi in declaratory judgment of non-infringement action regarding use of V-chip parental control technology in televisions. Filed reexamination requests against two patents, resulting in cancellation of broad claims and subsequent summary judgment decisions of non-infringement on remaining claims.

Sony v. Soundview, et al.

(District of Connecticut). Represented Mitsubishi in a patent infringement case involving use of V-chip technology. Author of successful summary judgment motion for non-infringement and Federal Circuit appeal brief.