David D. Cross

Partner | Washington D.C.

dcross@mofo.com | (202) 887-8795

dcross@mofo.com
(202) 887-8795

David Cross is a trial lawyer and a partner in the firm’s Global Antitrust Practice. He has extensive experience in antitrust and other complex business litigation, including intellectual property and general commercial matters. He represents domestic and foreign companies as plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state proceedings, in international and domestic arbitration, and before the International Trade Commission (in Section 337 matters). He has represented some of the world's leading companies, including CSX Transportation, DuPont, General Electric, Hyatt Hotels, John Deere, Oracle, Sumitomo Electric, Teradata, and Uber.

David brings a winning combination of creativity and passionate advocacy to every matter, moving cases to successful conclusions expeditiously and cost-effectively. He prides himself on establishing credibility and integrity with judges and juries, which is critical for obtaining favorable results in complex cases. His zealous pursuit of his clients’ interests includes uncovering discovery abuses by adversaries and obtaining important relief for clients, such as a $1.9 million sanction for Entrata, a leading software provider, and an adverse inference instruction to the jury plus monetary sanctions for DuPont.

David represents clients in all aspects of antitrust and competition-related matters, including government investigations relating to monopolization or alleged price-fixing and nationwide, bet-the-company class actions seeking tens of billions of dollars in damages. Clients frequently turn to him for counseling regarding compliance with domestic and international competition laws, including issues involving multisided markets, network effects, pricing algorithms, digital markets, and online marketplaces.

David represents clients across a broad range of industries, including software, transportation, electronics, data analytics and storage, automotive parts, online services, synthetic fiber, computer products, home appliances, and other consumer products.

David maintains a robust pro bono practice focusing on civil rights. He currently leads a team that obtained a statewide injunction on behalf of Georgia voters to prevent the continued use of an antiquated election system that had been hacked multiple times. David obtained critical admissions from the defendants’ election security expert that confirmed the unreliability of the outdated election system. That case is ongoing due to Georgia’s adoption of a new, unreliable election system.

David clerked for the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, former Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York and U.S. Attorney General. He previously served as Judge Mukasey’s teaching assistant for Trial Advocacy at Columbia Law School, both during and after law school.

Show More

Experience

  • Co-lead counsel for Matsuo Electric in defense of multidistrict litigation involving price-fixing claims by a nationwide class of nearly 1,800 direct purchasers of capacitors. Trial began March 2 and has been suspended since March 16 due to the global pandemic.

  • Lead counsel for Entrata, a leading provider of software solutions for large, institutional property owners and managers, pursuing monopolization (refusal to deal), tort, and contract claims against Yardi Systems. After jury selection, obtained favorable settlement that enabled customers once again to use Entrata’s leading software solutions with Yardi’s backend software system.

  • Lead counsel for Sumitomo Electric in defense of price-fixing claims by Ford Motor Company as part of multi-district class actions that resulted from the U.S. Department of Justice's largest ever criminal investigation involving allegations of price-fixing for certain auto parts. Obtained favorable settlement that maintained a valuable relationship with a major customer, one of the largest automotive makers in the world.

  • Lead counsel for DuPont as a counterclaim defendant in a case alleging monopolization involving para-aramid (fiber) products, also involving DuPont’s affirmative claims for trade secret theft regarding its leading Kevlar® products. The court granted summary judgment for the client on all counterclaims on the eve of trial, and a jury returned a verdict of over $900 million for the client on the trade secrets claims. The Fourth Circuit upheld summary judgment on appeal.

  • Represented CSX Transportation in defense of multidistrict class action litigation alleging conspiracy to fix fuel surcharge prices. Obtained denial of class certification after a week-long evidentiary hearing, including responsibility for oral argument and examination of defendants’ experts.

  • Represented Teradata Corp. in connection with its monopolization and tying claims against SAP SE relating to data analytics and storage.

  • Represented Deere & Company in connection with the U.S. Department of Justice’s court challenge to the proposed acquisition of Precision Planting LLC, a subsidiary of Monsanto, which decided not to pursue the sale shortly before trial.

  • Represented Hyatt Hotels in defense of multidistrict class action litigation alleging conspiracy to fix hotel room rates. The court dismissed all claims against the client.

  • Represented Uber in defense of class claims alleging unfair business practices regarding a competitor.

  • Represented one of the largest egg producers in the U.S. in defense of multidistrict class action and related state litigation alleging conspiracy to fix egg prices.

  • Represented General Electric as a plaintiff to recover damages resulting from conspiracy to fix prices of household appliance components.

  • Represented a top-ranked university and professor in a dispute with a pharmaceutical company over control of a promising prostate cancer treatment drug. The client prevailed at trial.

  • Represented a Fortune 500 company as special discovery counsel involving civil fraud claims. At trial, the jury returned a verdict for the client on all claims.

  • Represented a Fortune 500 technology company and other large commercial purchasers of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) as opt-outs in multidistrict class action litigation to recover damages resulting from price-fixing cartel among certain DRAM suppliers. The litigation obtained favorable settlements up to the eve of trial.

  • Represented Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (ECRC) in bankruptcy litigation against two international financial institutions arising from the collapse of Enron Corporation in 2001. The litigation settled on the eve of trial, with settlements for ECRC valued at nearly $6 billion.

  • Represented a Fortune 500 imaging company in a patent infringement action involving a process for virtual proofing of digital print jobs. The case settled on confidential terms.

  • Represented a large international biotechnology company in a dispute pertaining to the licensing of proprietary human genome data and technology. The case settled on confidential terms after trial began.

  • Represented a leading disc-drive maker in a patent infringement action as respondent before the U.S. ITC and as defendant in parallel action in federal district court. The cases settled on confidential terms on the eve of trial.

  • Represented international licensing companies as complainants in patent infringement action before the ITC regarding color televisions and display monitors. The case settled on confidential terms after the close of trial.

  • Representation of a Fortune 100 communications company in software licensing dispute. The case settled on confidential terms on the eve of trial.

Show More
Close
Feedback

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.