David Sipiora retired from KTS in April 2020 after more than twenty years as a partner in the firm and its predecessor, Townsend, Townsend & Crew. Before the merger of Kilpatrick Stockton and Townsend in January 2011, Mr. Sipiora was Chair of Litigation at TTC. From 2011 to 2016, Mr. Sipiora served as Co-Chair of the Patent Litigation Group at KTS overseeing a team of approximately 80 lawyers. A first-chair trial lawyer, Mr. Sipiora has served as lead counsel in several hundred patent cases across the United States, including all of the major patent venues – E.D. Texas, N.D. Cal., D. Del., C.D. Cal., W.D. Texas, and S.D.N.Y. As lead counsel, he tried dozens of patent, trade secret, and trademark cases to verdict, and was lead counsel in more than a dozen investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission. Mr. Sipiora’s practice spanned all intellectual property subject matter areas, but focused on patent litigation and licensing, trademark prosecution and counseling, and trade secret litigation and counseling. As described below, Mr. Sipiora repeatedly has been selected as one of Colorado’s top intellectual property lawyers by Chambers USA, IAM Patent 1000, Super Lawyers Magazine, The Best Lawyers in America, Managing Intellectual Property Magazine, and Law Week Colorado.
During his nearly thirty-five year career, Mr. Sipiora has represented plaintiffs and defendants, from start-ups to multinational companies, in enforcing and protecting rights in cutting-edge technology and well-established technology in virtually every commercial industry, from electronics and telecommunications (with particular experience in microprocessors, computer memory, databases, networks, and wireless communications) to consumer products, the food and beverage industry, and software applications in a host of commercial and industrial settings.
Mr. Sipiora is known for his efficiency and creativity in problem solving, not necessarily turning over every rock, but only those necessary to secure a successful outcome. In interviews with Chambers USA, clients have describe him as “incredibly results-oriented,” stated that his “litigation prowess is well known and he has a tremendous work ethic. He’s outstanding.” Others clients have commented that he is “tenacious and efficient -- he resolves contentious issues very quickly and at the least expense.” Mr. Sipiora has served as a mediator in patent litigation and has participated in dozens of mediations as lead legal negotiator for his client.
Mr. Sipiora has been a member of the Bar of the State of California since 1986, N.Y. and D.C. since 1990, and Colorado since 1998. From 1986-88, he served as a law clerk in the U.S. District Court for the N.D. of California where he gained extensive hands-on experience in patent cases. From 1991 to 1994, Mr. Sipiora served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and tried approximately a dozen cases to verdict or decision. In addition to serving as first-chair in dozens of trials, Mr. Sipiora has argued approximately two dozen cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeal, the majority of which have been in the Federal Circuit.
Mr. Sipiora is listed in the 2020 and the nine years immediately preceding editions of Chambers USA for intellectual property. He is one of only four lawyers rated by Chambers USA 2020 as "Tier One in IP" in Colorado. Mr. Sipiora has been recognized in Super Lawyers magazine as one of Colorado's "Super Lawyers" since 2008. He was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® in 2012 for patent litigation, and again in 2021 and the eight years immediately preceding for patent litigation and intellectual property law. Mr. Sipiora was named a "Denver Lawyer of the Year" in 2015 and 2018 for patent litigation, and again in 2017 and 2021 for intellectual property litigation by The Best Lawyers in America®. He was recognized as a “Top Litigator" in 2016 by Law Week Colorado. Mr. Sipiora was also named the 2014 "Best Intellectual Property Litigator" and 2011 "Best Intellectual Property Lawyer" in Colorado in the Barrister’s Best Issue of Law Week Colorado. He was recognized as an "IP Star" in 2020 and the seven years immediately preceding by Managing Intellectual Property magazine. Mr. Sipiora was named a top patent practitioner in 2020 and the seven years immediately preceding by IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners. He was named by Legal Media Group to its 2013 Guide to the World’s Leading Patent Practitioners. Mr. Sipiora was selected as one of Colorado’s “2020 Top Lawyers” by Best of 5280 – Denver Directory. He was selected as "People’s Choice in 2013" by Law Week Colorado for "Best Intellectual Property Litigator" in Colorado.
Lead counsel for respondents Broadcom, Inc. and six downstream customers (Technicolor, HTC, Comcast, Arista, NETGEAR, and ARRIS) in patent infringement and importation investigation in the U.S. International Trade Commission. Action brought by Tessera Technologies relating to semiconductor chip design and packaging technology. Case settled favorable after hearing/trial. In re Certain Semiconductor Devices, U.S. ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1010 (ITC, case filed 2016).
Lead counsel for plaintiff New Belgium Brewing Company in trademark infringement action brought in W.D. Texas relating to denomination of new product. Case settled favorably at the conclusion of discovery. New Belgium Brewing Co. v. Oasis Texas Brewing Co., Case No. 1:15-cv-452-LY (W.D. Texas, case filed 2015).
Lead counsel for defendant, a leading manufacturer and seller of optical lenses used in iPhones, in case involving multiple claims of patent infringement in N.D. California. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement; judgment upheld after appeal to Federal Circuit. Largan Precision Co. v. Genius Electronic Optical Co., 13-cv-02502 (N.D. Cal.); affirmed 646 F. App'x 946 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Case No. 2015-1695.
Lead counsel for defendants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems, LLC in multiple patent litigation and licensing dispute in N.D. California. Case involved claims of RAND violation in connection with licensing of standard essential patents. Case settled while on appeal after split jury verdict. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp. and Agere Systems, Case No. 5:12-cv-3451-RMW (N.D. Cal., case filed 2012).
Lead counsel for respondents LSI Corp. and Seagate Technologies in patent infringement and importation investigation in the U.S. International Trade Commission. Action brought by Rambus, Inc. involving external memory controllers and serializer/deserializer interfaces used in integrated circuits. Case settled favorable after successful outcome at ITC hearing/trial. In re Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-753 (ITC, case filed 2010).
Lead counsel for plaintiff Western Union in patent infringement action brought in the W.D. Texas involving patents for staging money transfers. After securing summary judgment of non-infringement of MoneyGram’s asserted patent, won jury verdict of infringement in favor of Western Union and damages award of $16.53 million. The court further entered a permanent injunction against MoneyGram. The Federal Circuit later reversed the trial court on the basis of obviousness. Western Union Co. v. Moneygram Int'l, Inc., No. 1-0372 (W.D. Tex. filed May 11, 2007), reversed 626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Lead counsel for defendants Agere Systems Inc. and LSI in a patent infringement and contractual dispute related to semiconductor processing, circuit design, modem and wireless technology in District of Delaware. Case brought by licensing subsidiary of General Electric. Case settled successfully after jury trial and verdict invalidating three of plaintiff’s four standard essential patents. CIF Licensing LLC v. Agere Sys. Inc., No. 07-0170 (D. Del., case filed 2007).
Lead counsel for plaintiff Agere Systems Inc. in patent infringement suit brought in E.D. Texas to enforce terms of licensing agreement relating to semiconductor technology. Case settled favorably after arbitration hearing. Agere Sys. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd, No. 06-0185 (E.D. Tex., case filed 2006).
Lead counsel for defendants Starbucks, Seattle’s Best Coffee, Circuit City, Williams-Sonoma, and Pottery Barn in a patent infringement suit regarding stored value card transactions. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement which was affirmed after an appeal to the Federal Circuit. Realsource, Inc. v. Best Buy, et al., No. 1-771 (W.D. Tex., case filed 2004), affirmed 282 F. App'x 821 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Lead counsel for defendants Wal-Mart, Starbucks, and Sam’s Club in a patent infringement action involving patents related to gift card technology. After holding a combined partial claim construction/summary judgment hearing, the Court found the claim at issue in the case invalid, mooting the non-infringement issues. Ruling upheld on appeal by the Federal Circuit. Default Proof v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al., No. 1:03-cv-20094-CMA (S.D. Fla. 2003), affirmed 412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Insights View All
- Trademark Litigation
- Online & Digital Enforcement
- Trademark, Copyright & Advertising
- Advertising Counseling & Disputes
- Brand Licensing & Related Transactions
- Copyright Litigation & Counseling
- Clearance & Portfolio Management
- Post-Grant Proceedings
- ITC Section 337
- Intellectual Property
- Patent Litigation
- Trade Secrets
- Licensing, Transactions & Monetization
Columbia University B.A. (1982) summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa
Harvard Law School J.D. (1986) cum laude
District of Columbia (1990)
New York (1990)
American Intellectual Property Law Association
International Trademark Association
The Colorado Intellectual Property American Inn of Court
Institute for Life and Care, Board Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.