Denise De Mory

Managing Partner

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


     Rated by SuperLawyers  

Denise De Mory is the Managing Partner and co-founder of Bunsow De Mory and has litigated patent and other intellectual property cases for nearly thirty years. Denise has significant trial experience, including a patent trial that resulted in a $61 million verdict for her client.  She was also a member of the United States Department of Justice’s trial team, in the U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust litigation.  Denise deposed executive-level Microsoft witnesses and the chief architect of Internet Explorer, and offered one of the government’s technical experts at trial. It is Denise’s firm understanding of what matters at trial and what it takes to effectively communicate to a judge and to a jury that enables her to develop and pursue successful strategies to achieve her clients’ goals and objectives.  Denise has been ranked by Chambers and Partners 2021 USA list for Intellectual Property:  Patent Litigation, the Daily Journal’s 2021 list of Top Women Lawyers in California, U.S. News – Best Lawyers for 2021 and a 2021 Super 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.

 Recent Awards

  • Chambers and Partners USA, Intellectual Property: Patent Litigation.
  • Global Top 250 Women in IP, IP Stars.
  • IP Star, Managing IP.
  • California’s “Top Women Litigators,” Daily Journal.
  • California’s “Top Intellectual Property Lawyer,” Daily Journal.
  • Super Lawyer, Daily Journal.
  • Best Lawyers, Northern California.
  • Best Lawyers in America®.
  • Silicon Valley Women of Influence, Silicon Valley Business Journal.


  • 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

Theta IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.  BDIP successfully asserted core mobile phone battery savings patents invented by world-renowned Columbia Professor Yannis Tsividis against Samsung in the Western District of Texas.  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.  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. et al. v. Apple Inc.  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. Member of United States Department of Justice trial team. 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. et al. 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. 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. 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. 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. Represented AuthenTec in patent infringement case relating to fingerprint sensor technology. The case resolved with AuthenTec acquiring UPEK.

NXP B.V. v. Nintendo. Represented NXP in patent infringement case asserting NFC patents.  Case resolved favorably for NXP.

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

Bender v. NXP Semiconductors, Inc. Represented NXP in semiconductor technology case. Resolved early and favorably for NXP.

Intravisual, Inc. v. NXP Semiconductors, Inc. Represented NXP in patent case relating to video compression technology.

CLI v. Toshiba. Represented Toshiba in a patent infringement litigation relating to digital video compression technology. The case resolved in a very favorable settlement.

Broadmedia v. 2Wire. Represented 2Wire in a patent infringement case relating to ADSL filter technology. The patentee dismissed the suit based on strength of located prior art and filed its own petition for reexamination after dismissal.

The Whipsaw Group v. Network Appliance CorpRepresented NetApp in a trade secret misappropriation case in which Defendants alleged that NetApp misappropriated the idea for its flagship product from plaintiff’s business plan.   Case settled very favorably to NetApp after summary judgment hearing.

Ajayi v. Jatoft-Foti. Successfully represented plaintiff in a wrongful termination, retaliation, and harassment case. Co-chaired seven-week jury trial. Obtained $275,000 verdict against insurance agency and its parent company by piercing the parent company’s long-standing “independent contractor” defense, and subjecting the parent company to liability for its agents as employees under California law.

Clorox v. Dowbrands. Represented Clorox in trademark infringement case; obtained favorable settlement after preliminary injunction hearing.

Harris Corporation v. Winbond. Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action relating to memory devices; settled after summary judgment motions were filed. 

Harris Corporation v. Hyundai. Represented Harris Corporation, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of integrated circuits, in this nine patent infringement action against Hyundai relating to DRAM and SRAM technology. The case was settled at the pretrial stage for the client’s initial settlement target amount and the counterclaims were dismissed.

Rombauer Vineyards v. Creston Vineyards. Represented Rombauer in a law trademark infringement action.  Obtained a verdict for Rombauer on compensatory and punitive damages.

Teknowledge v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. Represented defendant Akamai in a patent infringement suit relating to methods for accessing objects on a distributed network. The matter resolved in a very favorable settlement.


BDSA Logo Square

Attorneys. Technologists. Trusted Advisors.
© 2021-2023 Bunsow De Mory LLP

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