David Reed, a member of Kilpatrick Townsend’s intellectual property group, focuses his practice on intellectual property dispute resolution, with particular emphasis on patent infringement and related intellectual property litigation and licensing transactions. He regularly advises clients on defensive strategies including third-party patent reexamination and review proceedings, patent invalidity opinions, and design activities to minimize infringement risks. Mr. Reed also has substantial patent prosecution experience.
Mr. Reed has handled matters involving diverse technologies including wireless communications, software, e-commerce, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, electrical devices, power generation, manufacturing equipment, and consumer products. He has practiced before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. district courts, the International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Prior to his legal career, Mr. Reed worked as a process engineer for a major chemical company and interned with the U.S. House of Representatives. He also co-founded and served on the board of directors of the Georgia Tech Bar Association, an active professional organization of Georgia Tech alumni in the legal field. Mr. Reed is an active member of the State Bar of Georgia.
Mr. Reed was recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® in 2024 for Intellectual Property Litigation. He has been recognized annually as a Georgia "Rising Star" in the area of Intellectual Property by Super Lawyers magazine.
Represented adidas AG, adidas North America, Inc., adidas America, Inc., and adidas International Trading AG in patent infringement and importation investigation at ITC brought by Nike, Inc., related to the design and manufacture of shoe uppers for knitted footwear, with related action in Oregon federal court. One of the largest patent cases in the footwear industry, the case involved nine U.S. patents from multiple distinct families of patents, each covering a different subject matter. After completing both fact and expert discovery, the case was settled on confidential terms shortly before the evidentiary hearing at the ITC. In re Certain Knitted Footwear, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1289; Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG et al., No. 3:21-cv-01780 (D. Or.)
Represented one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies in the trial of a Hatch-Waxman case relating to the drug lansoprazole, which has an annual domestic market in excess of $3 billion.
Defended a pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving the drug bivalirudin.
Represented an electrical-device manufacturer in appeals to the U.S. International Trade Commission and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Represented the respondent manufacturer of the active pharmaceutical ingredient of a drug product for treatment of osteoporosis in a Section 337 investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Represented one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies in the trial of a Hatch-Waxman case relating to the drug cinacalcet hydrochloride, which has an annual domestic market in excess of $400 million. Brigham and Women's Hospital Inc., et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. et al., No. 08-464 (D. Del. filed July 25, 2008).
Served as lead counsel representing Motorola in IPR trials before the United States Patent and Trademark Office for two related patents that are the subject of litigation in Delaware (SoftView LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC before Judge Stark). We filed a successful motion to join two corresponding IPR trials that had been filed by Kyocera and subsequently instituted. We represented Motorola in oral argument before the board on January 7, 2014, and received a decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. Judge Stark (D.Del.), who previously denied a motion for stay in the case, granted a stay in view of our IPR trials. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s finding that all claims were invalid. Case numbers IPR2013-00256, IPR2013-00257; related case numbers IPR2013-00004, IPR2013-00007.
We represented Motorola Mobility in defending patent infringement claims related to wireless earpiece technology in the Western District of Texas. After winning summary judgment on certain of the claims and forcing plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of others before trial, we presented a defense that led the jury to return a verdict of non-infringement and invalidity against the remaining claims that were at issue. Effingo Wireless, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 5:11-cv-00649 (W.D. Tex.) We also invalidated the patent in a re-examination proceeding.
Insights View All
University of Virginia School of Law J.D. (2006)
Georgia Institute of Technology B.S. (2002) Chemical Engineering
Georgia Court of Appeals (2007)
Georgia Superior Court (2006)
Supreme Court of Georgia (2007)
Supreme Court of the United States (2018)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2007)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2006)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (2017)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (2011)
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (2013)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2007)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2007)
American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law and Litigation Sections, Member
American Bar Association, State and Local Tax Section, Retroactivity Tax Force, Member
American Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
Atlanta Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section and Atlanta Council of Younger Lawyers, Member
Federal Bar Association, Member
Federal Circuit Bar Association, Member
Georgia Tech Bar Association, Co-founder
Intellectual Property Owners Association, Member
International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association, Member
State Bar of Georgia, Intellectual Property Law Section, Technology Law Section, and Young Lawyers Division, 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.