David D. Scannell

David D. Scannell

Associate

Washington D.C., (202) 887-6957

Education

Dartmouth College (B.A., 2002)
University of Virginia School of Law (J.D., 2009)

Bar Admissions

Virginia
District of Columbia

David Scannell is an associate in the firm’s Litigation Department. Mr. Scannell focuses his practice on intellectual property disputes before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the federal courts. He has litigated several successful, high-profile cases in the ITC involving complex technologies, including graphical user interfaces, image processing architectures, and sonar devices. He has drafted complaints, summary judgment motions, and trial briefs, has taken and defended depositions, and has helped negotiate settlement agreements.

Mr. Scannell has also advised clients in connection with matters involving compliance with federal agencies, particularly in responding to allegations of unfair or deceptive acts in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Mr. Scannell has also advocated for clients on a pro-bono basis in a number of areas, including Constitutional violations by law enforcement, custody disputes, housing discrimination matters, and predatory lending practices.

Before law school, Mr. Scannell was a consultant with Computer Sciences Corporation, where he delivered a number of enterprise solutions to the federal government, including the integration of the United States Army’s logistics systems.

Mr. Scannell received his J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School in 2009, where he was an editor of the University of Virginia Journal of Law & Politics. He received his B.A. from Dartmouth College in 2002.

Microscan Systems, Inc. v. Cognex Corporation
(Southern District of New York). Won a jury verdict of infringement, validity, and reasonable royalty damages for plaintiff Microscan in a patent case related to high-end barcode scanners.
Certain Electronic Imaging Devices
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-850). Defended Huawei in an investigation alleging that Huawei’s mobile electronic devices infringed patents related to image processing hardware and software. After a full hearing, the ITC found that Huawei’s products did not infringe the asserted patents and terminated the investigation.
Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-753). Defended Hitachi Global Storage Technologies from allegations that its memory devices infringed patents asserted by non-practicing entity Rambus Inc. The Commission agreed with Hitachi that Rambus’ asserted patents were invalid and unenforceable based on the doctrine of unclean hands, and also that Rambus did not have the required domestic industry, resulting in the termination of the investigation.
Microscan Systems, Inc. v. Cognex Corporation
(Southern District of New York). Won a jury verdict of infringement, validity, and reasonable royalty damages for plaintiff Microscan in a patent case related to high-end barcode scanners.
Certain Electronic Imaging Devices
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-850). Defended Huawei in an investigation alleging that Huawei’s mobile electronic devices infringed patents related to image processing hardware and software. After a full hearing, the ITC found that Huawei’s products did not infringe the asserted patents and terminated the investigation.
Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-753). Defended Hitachi Global Storage Technologies from allegations that its memory devices infringed patents asserted by non-practicing entity Rambus Inc. The Commission agreed with Hitachi that Rambus’ asserted patents were invalid and unenforceable based on the doctrine of unclean hands, and also that Rambus did not have the required domestic industry, resulting in the termination of the investigation.

Email 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.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.