Denise De Mory

Denise De Mory

Managing Partner

phone  (650) 351-7241
email   [email protected]
vcard   Download vCard

Denise De Mory is the managing partner and co-founder of Bunsow De Mory. She has litigated more than 150 patent and intellectual property cases in courts around the country, with significant stops in the major jurisdictions for patent litigation in California, Texas, and Delaware.  

Denise thrives in the courtroom. She is an experienced trial lawyer with 11 cases tried to a verdict. One of these cases was the U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust litigation. Denise was a key player on the Justice Department’s team. After deposing executive-level Microsoft witnesses and the chief architect of Internet Explorer, Denise offered one of the government’s technical experts at trial. 

She has also litigated dozens of inter partes review petitions before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and briefed and argued before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals many times. 

Whatever the forum, Denise has the experience, expertise and savvy to achieve her client’s objectives. She often brings in significant settlements for her clients against law firms more than 50 times the size of Bunsow De Mory.  That’s why universities, university professors, start-ups, and individual inventors rely on Denise’s strategic acumen to maximize the value of their IP.    

In the past year, she has been ranked by Chambers USA for patent litigation, IAM 300 as a Strategy 300 Global Leader, Law Dragon as one of the Top 500 Litigators in America, Managing IP as a Global Top 250 Women in IP and an IP Star, the Daily Journal as a Top Woman Lawyer and as a Top IP Lawyer, and US News & Report as a Best Lawyer. 

Denise enjoys traveling with her family, is a certified sewing instructor with a passion for costume design and construction and takes math classes (for fun!) in her spare time.  

                     

Publications & Speeches

  • Doing Business in… 2023″. For Chambers and Partners: Trends and Developments, June 2023
  • ”2022 U.S. IP Year in Review.” LES Silicon Valley Chapter, January 2023. Panelist.
  • “Light At The End Of The Rabbit Hole? Is Preemption Finally Returning To The Alice Analysis?” Daily Journal, October 2016. Panelist, Patent Disputes Forum South.
  •  “Alice Test: Is It Clearing District Court Dockets And Making The Concept Of Preemption For Ineligible Subject Matter A Dead Issue?”, Daily Journal, May 2016.  Panelist, Patent Disputes Forum North.
  • Patent Law Roundtable, California Lawyer, October 2015.  Panelist.
  • Presentation, “2012 Federal Circuit Review,” PLI: Patent Law Institute 2013 (7th Annual), San Francisco, CA, March 2013
  • Presentation, “Marine Polymner v. Hemcon:  An “Amended or New” Standard for Intervening Rights,” PLI Audio Webcast, April 2012.
  • Presentation, “2011 Federal Circuit Review,” PLI: Patent Law Institute 2012 (6th Annual), San Francisco, CA, March 2012.
  • “Inside & Outside Counsel Perspectives:   Challenges to Finding a Balance of Life, Law & the Pursuit of Happiness” (AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute), January 2012. Panelist.
  • Presentation, “2010 Federal Circuit Review,” PLI: Patent Law Institute 2011 (5th Annual), San Francisco, CA, March 2011.
  • Presentation, “2009 Federal Circuit Review,” PLI: Patent Law Institute 2010 (4th Annual), San Francisco, CA, March 2010.
  • “Chapter 2: 2009 Federal Circuit Review,” Patent Law Institute 2010 (4th Annual) – Course Handbook, Practising Law Institute (PLI), 2010.
  • “Who’s Looking at Your Products? Patent Marking Claims; A New Threat to Your Company!” American Corporate Counsel (ACC), San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, March 2, 2010. Presented with Ethan Andelman.
  • Presentation, “2009 Federal Circuit Review,” PLI: Patent Law Institute 2010 (4th Annual), San Francisco, CA, March 2010.

 Education

  • John Marshall Law School, J.D.
  • University of Illinois, B.A.

 Bar Admissions

  • California

Court Admissions

  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Central District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. (D. Del.): Represents Ramot in patent infringement litigation relating to optical networking patents. Defeated every challenge launched by Cisco against Ramot’s patents, including six inter partes review petitions, ten ex parte reexaminations, and seven Federal Circuit appeals without invalidating a single patent claim. Obtained favorable claim constructions. Trial set for November 2025.  

Theta IP, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (W.D. Tex.): Represents Theta IP in patent infringement litigation against Apple relating to patents covering power-savings technologies for mobile communications. Accuses Apple’s iPhone, iPad, and Watch products of infringing these core patents. Defeated Apple’s motion to transfer venue to Northern California. 

Theta IP, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC et al. (N.D. Ill.): Represents Theta IP in patent infringement litigation against Motorola and Lenovo relating to patents covering power-savings technologies for mobile communications. Lenovo filed three inter partes review petitions against Theta patents at issue in the federal litigation. Bunsow De Mory defeated one IPR at the preliminary stage, when the PTAB denied institution. Lenovo’s other two IPRs proceeded to trial before a panel of administrative judges at the PTAB. Won the trials when the PTAB upheld the validity of the patents. 

TOT Power Control, S.L. v. LG, Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., (D. Del.); TOT Power Control, S.L. v.  Apple Inc. (D. Del.); TOT Power Control, S.L. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. (D. Del.): Brought into existing case by large litigation firm to take over technical and damages issues. Led the firm’s team in completing discovery against all three defendants, successfully briefing and arguing claim construction, shepherding expert reports, and briefing dispositive pre-trial motions. Trial is set for June 2025. 

Inmar Brand Solutions, Inc. v. Quotient Technology Inc. (D. Del.): Represents Inmar in patent infringement litigation against Quotient. Patents at issue related to coupon clearning technology. At the outset of the case, defeated Quotient’s motion to dismiss under section 101.  

ViaTech Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe, Inc. (D.Del.): Represents ViaTech in patent infringement case against Adobe. Patents at issue relate to software e-commerce tools and solutions for distributing and protecting digital content. Led trial team in September 2023 trial. The jury found that Adobe infringed the patent, rejected Adobe’s invalidity defenses and awarded ViaTech nearly $33.8 million in damages—the full amount of damages requested at trial. In July 2024, the trial court granted Adobe’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. ViaTech filed a motion for reconsideration of that order, which remains pending. 

Daedalus Blue LLC v. Oracle (W.D. Tex.): Assisted Daedalus Blue in selecting the cloud computing patent portfolio it acquired from IBM and formulated the enforcement strategy. The first suit, against Oracle settled for a significant sum before an answer was filed.  

Daedalus Blue LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Tex.). Represented Daedalus in patent infringement action against Microsoft relating to the cloud computing patents acquired from IBM. While the federal case was proceeding, Microsoft filed petitions for inter partes review and ex parte re-examination against the asserted patents. The parties then settled the full dispute on favorable terms to Daedalus. 

Daedalus Blue LLC v. MicroStrategy Corp. (E.D Va.): Represented Daedalus in patent infringment action against MicroStategy on the cloud computing patents acquired from IBM. Case settled for a signifcant sum on the eve of trial. 

BiTMICRO LLC v. Intel Corporation (W.D. Tex / N.D. Cal.). Represented BiTMICRO in patent infringement action against Intel Corporation relating to its NAND flash and FPGA products. The matter settled favorably after defeating several IPRs and before substantial fact discovery. 

BiTMICRO LLC v. KIOXIA Corporation, et al. (W.D. Tex.). Represented BiTMICRO in patent infringement action against KIOXIA relating to its NAND flash memory products. The matter settled favorably after BDIP obtained orders requiring KIOXIA to produce worldwide sales data. 

Theta IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (W.D. Tex.): Successfully asserted core mobile phone battery savings patents invented by world-renowned Columbia Professor Yannis Tsividis against Samsung. After defeating the dozen-plus dispositive motions that Samsung filed throughout the case and in pretrial proceedings, BDIP achieved a very favorable resolution on what was to be the first day of trial, as the jury was en route to the courthouse for jury selection. 

Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. (“Inmar”) v. Cardinal Health (M.D.N.C.): Represented Inmar in a trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, fraud and unfair competition case in the Middle District of North Carolina. Settled on favorable terms. 

Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc. (E.D. Tex.): Represented Ericsson in two patent lawsuits alleging that Apple’s iPhone line of products infringed Ericsson’s security, user interface, and platform architecture patents.  Ericsson secured a global patent license agreement and settlement of all pending proceedings on highly favorable terms. 

United States v. Microsoft (D.D.C.) Member of United States Department of Justice trial team in antitrust case against Microsoft. Responsible for motion drafting, depositions of Microsoft technical and management personnel and experts, defending and taking third party depositions, preparation of trial witnesses, preparation for cross-examination and examination of United States’ technical expert at trial. 

Innovative Biometric Technology, Inc. v. AuthenTec, Inc. (N.D.Cal.): Represented AuthenTec as intervenor in case against AuthenTec customers relating to fingerprint sensor software. Plaintiff dismissed case with prejudice following claim construction and summary judgment hearing.  The court found the case to be exceptional and awarded fees to our client, AuthenTec. 

Harris Corporation v. Ericsson, Inc. (N.D. Tex.) Served as second chair in 4-week patent infringement case. The asserted patent related to cellular communications systems and methods that are used to equalize transmitted information in cellular phones and base stations. The jury awarded Harris approximately $61 million in compensatory damages and found that Ericsson’s infringement was “willful.” 

Atmel Corporation, et al. v. AuthenTec, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Defended AuthenTec in patent infringement suit brought by fingerprint sensor competitor Atmel.  We obtained summary judgment of noninfringement for AuthenTec on both patents-in-suit relating to fingerprint sensor technology, and shortly thereafter, Atmel exited the fingerprint sensor market. 

AuthenTec, Inc. v. Atrua Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Represented AuthenTec in a patent infringement suit relating to fingerprint sensor technology. On the verge of the Markman hearing, the case resolved with AuthenTec acquiring Atrua’s assets. 

UPEK, Inc. v. AuthenTec, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Represented AuthenTec in patent infringement case relating to fingerprint sensor technology. The case resolved with AuthenTec acquiring UPEK. 

NXP B.V. v. Nintendo (D. Nev.): Represented NXP in patent infringement case asserting NFC patents. Case resolved favorably for NXP. 

Cassidian Communications v. Intrado, Inc. (E.D. Tex.): Represented Cassidian in patent infringement litigation relating to 9-1-1 technology.  Obtained favorable settlement shortly before trial. 

BDSA Logo Square

Attorneys. Technologists. Trusted Advisors.
© 2021-2024 Bunsow De Mory LLP

Attorney Advertising. Past results are not an indication of future performance.