David Gross is a trial lawyer.

In 2009 the National Law Journal named David to its annual list of "Top Ten Winning Litigators in the United States." In 2008 The American Lawyer named David one of 50 "Rising Litigation Stars in the United States" and IP Law & Business featured David as a leading trial lawyer. He has been recognized as a leading IP trial lawyer in Chambers USA, Minnesota Law & Politics and The Best Lawyers in America. David's trial victories in major IP cases led Minnesota Lawyer to name David one of the top 15 lawyers in Minnesota for 2003 and 2008.

David's representative cases include:

• Lead trial counsel for 3M in a series of patent infringement cases in which 3M obtained consent judgments of infringement against its competitors
• Lead trial counsel for Seagate Technology in a complex patent case brought by Siemens accusing all disc drives sold by Seagate since 2000 of infringing Siemens' patent on GMR sensor technology. Following a six-week jury trial in the Central District of California (Santa Ana Division), the jury returned a complete defense verdict for Seagate based on both anticipation and obviousness. The trial victory was covered in IP Law360.
• Lead trial counsel for Global Traffic Technologies LLC, a former 3M business, in a patent infringement jury trial involving Opticom, the world's leading traffic preemption technology. The jury awarded Global Traffic $6.75 million in damages, and the court entered a comprehensive permanent injunction.
• Lead trial counsel for FLOE International in a patent infringement jury trial involving snowmobile trailer technology. The jury found willful infringement of FLOE's patent, and the court doubled FLOE's damages award for a final judgment of over $2 million.
• Lead trial counsel for Wyeth in a trade secret misappropriation trial involving Premarin, a leading hormone replacement therapy drug. The trial victory was profiled in a page one story in The National Law Journal.
• Lead trial counsel in a multimillion-dollar arbitration hearing in Las Vegas for a medical technology company accused of breaching an IP license agreement. The arbitrator ruled in favor of our client and awarded no damages to the complainant.
• Lead trial counsel in a multimillion-dollar arbitration hearing in Chicago for a medical technology company accused of breaching an IP license agreement. The panel ruled in favor of our client and awarded no damages to the complainant.

Prior to joining the Minneapolis office of Faegre & Benson, David was a litigator in Washington, D.C., serving as a trial attorney in the Honors Program of the United States Department of Justice; a litigation associate at Covington & Burling; and a litigation associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

David is head of the firm's intellectual property litigation practice and a national lecturer on trial advocacy and IP litigation.

Professional Recognition

Clerkships

Presentations

• Power IP Litigation in the Digital Decade
  Keynote Address, AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute, La Quinta, CA
• The Power IP Update
  Keynote Address, Midwest IP Institute
• What Examiners Should Know About Patent Infringement Jury Trials
  United States Patent & Trademark Office, Alexandria, Virginia
• How to Use the Power Trial Method to Win Your Next Trial
  Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington
• Success as a Lawyer and How to Achieve It
  New Mexico Annual Bar Convention

Publications

• The Secret of a Good Bluff is Not to Bluff: Using Trial Vision to Settle Your Patent Case
  PLI Patent Litigation 2009, 982 PLI 361 (2009) 
• Accepting the Consequences of Victory: Could a Broad Claim Construction Invalidate Your Claim on Written Description and Enablement Grounds?
  PLI  Patent Litigation 2008, 948 PLI 345 (2008) 
• Saying No to De Novo Review: The Federal Circuit Contemplates Revisiting the Appellate Standard of Review for Claim Construction
  Practicing Law Institute Patent Litigation 2007, 910 PLI 205 (2007)
• Wilson Sporting Goods and the Role of the Accused Product in Claim Construction
  Practicing Law Institute Patent Litigation 2006, 875 PLI 53 (2006)
• Claim Construction, Patent Infringement, and the Growing Importance of the Claim Vitiation Defense
  Practicing Law Institute Patent Litigation 2005, 841 PLI 41 (2005)
• We Have a Split Decision: Analyzing the Internal Conflicts Within the Federal Circuit on the Issue of Claim Construction
  Practicing Law Institute Patent Litigation 2004, 804 PLI 55 (2004)
• You Must Be Mistaken: Federal Circuit "Corrections" of District Court Claim Constructions
  Practicing Law Institute Patent Litigation 2003, 766 PLI 47 (2003)
• The IP Book
  Editor, first through seventh editions, Minnesota CLE (2003–09)
• The Power Trial Method
  National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA)

Civic Associations

Pro Bono