David Radulescu is a Founder and Partner of Radulescu LLP, an elite patent litigation boutique firm based in New York City. The firm has a reputation for focusing on high-stakes, complex patent litigation where a deep understanding of the interplay between technology and legal issues is critical to a company's litigation success. The firm often works on matters where patent litigation is the most important risk facing a client, typically in the context of a multi-patent, multi-jurisdiction dispute with a primary competitor. Dr. Radulescu has litigated more patent cases than any other lawyer in the United States in the field of semiconductor light emitting devices (LEDs). He has authored over 25 publications in the area of semiconductor devices and materials. His Ph.D. Dissertation (Cornell University) involved compound semiconductor crystal growth and characterization for device applications.


Ranked in IAM Patent 1000 as a World Leading Patent Practitioner: “David Radulescu has worked in numerous prestigious firms, including Fried Frank, Weil and Quinn Emanuel. In the six years since he set up his own eponymous firm, the electrical engineering PhD has continued to perform at the highest level when grappling with convoluted high-tech patent litigations that go right to the heart of the business for the parties involved.” (IAM Patent 1000: 2019)


“David Radulescu runs an eponymous patent litigation boutique that is set up to handle mission-critical, multi-patent and multi-jurisdictional lawsuits. The former Quinn Emanuel partner has a flair for high-tech litigation and has the distinction of being the top expert on cases concerning LEDs.” (IAM Patent 1000: 2018)


“The founder of an eponymous specialist patent litigation boutique, David Radulescu is one of the nation’s leading experts on light-emitting diodes and has tried many cases in the field. The electrical engineering PhD has a passion for technology which, alongside his finely honed trial skills, helps him carry the day in high-stakes infringement tussles.” (IAM Patent 1000: 2017)


Ranked in Chambers & Partners: “David Radulescu of Radulescu LLP concentrates mainly on patent litigation and has unmatched experience in cases involving semiconductor light-emitting devices. He also advises on patent strategy.”
 

EdisonReport.net: "As the LED lighting industry continues to see more aggression and litigations filed by owners of LED-related patents, Radulescu LLP has positioned itself as a key player to assist manufacturers and resellers."

Notable Representations
The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.

Lead counsel for defendant Cree, Inc. in patent infringement action filed by Fox (represented by Finnegan Henderson) in the Eastern District of Virginia involving silicon carbide crystal growth and use of microscopy to measure dislocation densities.  Obtained summary judgment of patent invalidity on the eve of trial.  Fox appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Represented Cree in arguing before the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the victory before the district court.

Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC v. Toshiba Corp. et al.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Lambeth Magnetic Structures in a patent infringement action against Toshiba et al. in the Western District of Pennsylvania involving magnetic materials for hard disk drives.

 

IPR 2016-00013 (TDK Corp. v. Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC)

Lead counsel for Patent Owner Lambeth Magnetic Structures in an Inter Partes Review Petition filed before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board filed by TDK related to U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988. Obtained denial of institution.

 

Koninklikjke Philips N.V. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., d/b/a WAC Lighting

Lead counsel for defendant WAC Lighting in a patent infringement action filed by Philips (represented by Finnegan Henderson) in the District of Massachusetts involving 10 patents relating to LED technology including patents originating from Color Kinetics Inc.

 

IPRs 2015-1287, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293 and 1294 (WAC Lighting v. Philips)

Lead counsel for Petitioner WAC Lighting in seven (7) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board requesting the cancellation of asserted invalid claims in Philips’ U.S. Patent Nos. 6,013,988; 6,147,458; 6,250,774; 6,561,690; 6,586,890; 7,038,399; and 7,352,138.

 

IPRs 2018-1482, 1483, 1484, 1485 (Everlight v. Bridgelux)

Lead counsel for Patent Owner Bridgelux in four (4) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board involving Bridgelux Patent Nos. 6,869,812; 8,567,988; 8,092,051; and 8,256,929.

 

IPRs 2018-1574 and 2019-0834 (Intel v. Institute of Micro-Electronics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences)

Lead counsel for Patent Owner IMECAS in two (2) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board involving IMECAS Patent No. 9,070,719.  Obtained denial of institution in both cases.

 

IPRs 2018-1748 and 2019-1582 (Enercorp v. SDI)

Lead counsel for Patent Owner SDI in two (2) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board involving SDI Patent Nos. 8,945,256 and 9,861,921.
 

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Green Creative

Lead counsel for Green Creative in Blackbird’s assertion of U.S. Patent No. 7,086747 against Green Creative’s LED T8 tubes.  Settled on favorable terms for Green Creative.

 

Blackbird Tech LLC v. 1000Bulbs.com and Precision Light & Transformer

Lead counsel for defendants in Blackbird’s assertion of U.S. Patent No. 7,086,747 against LED T8 tubes made by, among others, ETi, Green Creative, PlusRite and ELB Electrical.  Settled on favorable terms for defendants.

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Plusrite and Fanlight Inc.: Lead counsel for defendants in Blackbird’s assertion of U.S. Patent No. 7,086,747 against LED T8 tubes.

 

Aqua Lighting v. Leslie’s Poolmart (wrt Halco products)

Lead counsel for Halco in Aqua’s assertion of U.S. Patent No. 6,616,291 against LED pool lights.

 

GoLight, Inc. v. AAC Enterprise, d/b/a Oracle Lighting

Counsel for Oracle in a patent infringement and trade dress action filed by GoLight in the District of Colorado involving a patent relating to LED technology.  

 

Philips v. Howard Corp.

Lead counsel for Howard in a patent infringement action filed by Philips in the District of Mississippi involving 4 patents relating to LED technology.

 

Lexington Luminance v. 1000Bulbs.com

Lead counsel for defendant 1000Bulbs in a patent infringement action filed by Lexington Luminance in the Northern District of Texas involving a patent directed to LED chip technology being asserted against over 50 different LED bulbs.

 

Super Lighting v. Maxlite

Lead counsel for defendant Maxlite in a patent infringement action filed by Super Lighting in the Central District of California involving 6 patents relating to T8 LED tubes.

 

Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v. Curtis International, Inc.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Seoul Semiconductor asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the Southern District of Florida involving light emitting diode technology for use in LED TVs.

 

Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v. Craig Electronics, Inc.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Seoul Semiconductor asserting five patents in a patent infringement action pending in the Southern District of Florida involving light emitting diode technology for use in LED TVs.

 

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica Corp.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Finisar Corp. asserting six patents in a patent infringement action against Nistica (represented by Dentons LLP) in the Northern District of California involving optical communication technology.

 

Zond LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp. & Renesas Electronics America Inc.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. & Global Foundries U.S., Inc.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. TSMC and Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. Toshiba Corp.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. SK Hynix Corp.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.  Settled on favorable terms after limited discovery and Zond’s service of detailed infringement contentions.

 

Zond, LLC v. Gillette Corp. and Proctor & Gamble Corp.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting ten patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. Intel Corp.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California involving Internet of Things (“IoT”) semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms prior to the opening of discovery.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Synopsys, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas involving Internet of Things (“IoT”) semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms after limited discovery and service of detailed infringement contentions.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. NXP Semiconductor Netherlands B.V. and NXP USA, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas involving Internet of Things (“IoT”) semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms prior to the opening of discovery.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. The Athena Group, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Florida involving IoT semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms after defeating a motion to dismiss.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Redpine Signals, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California involving IoT semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms prior to the opening of discovery.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Coherent Logix Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas involving IoT semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms prior to the opening of discovery.

 

Veeco v. SGL Carbon SE et al.

Counsel for SGL in a multi-patent dispute pending in the Eastern District of New York involving CVD technology to make semiconductor light-emitting devices.

 

Mears Technologies Inc. v. Finisar Corp.

Lead counsel for Defendant Finisar Corp. in patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving optical communication technology.  Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement.  Mears appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Represented Finisar in arguing before the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the victory before the district court.

 

Swan Co. Ltd. v. Finisar Corp. & Fujitsu Ltd.

Lead counsel for defendant Finisar Corp. in patent infringement action filed by Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. (represented by Fish & Richardson)  pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving optical communication technology.  Obtained favorable settlement after fact discovery and claim construction.

IPRs 2014-0460, 0461, 0462 and 0465 (Finisar v. Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd)

Lead counsel for Petitioner Finisar in four (4) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board requesting the cancellation of invalid claims being asserted by Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,145,710; 7,664,395; 8,089,683 and 8,335,033.

 

Finisar Corp. v. Cheetah Omni, LLC.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Finisar Corp. in patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Michigan involving optical communication technology.  Obtained injunction against Cheetah Omni from prosecuting co-pending infringement claims against Finisar’s customers in the Eastern District of Texas.

 

Dow Corning Compound Semiconductor Solutions, LLC v. Cree, Inc.

Lead counsel for defendant Cree, Inc. in patent infringement action filed by Dow Corning (represented Orrick Herrington) in the Eastern District of Michigan involving silicon carbide semiconductor technology.  Prevailed on a motion to dismiss Dow’s complaint for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction.

 

The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.

Lead counsel for defendant Cree, Inc. in patent infringement action filed by Fox (represented by Finnegan Henderson) in the Eastern District of Virginia involving silicon carbide crystal growth and use of microscopy to measure dislocation densities. Obtained summary judgment of patent invalidity on the eve of trial. Fox appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Represented Cree in arguing before the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the victory before the district court.

 

Prof. Gertrude Neumark Rothschild v. Cree, Inc.

Lead counsel for Cree in patent infringement action pending in the Southern District of New York involving gallium nitride semiconductor technology.

 

Seoul Semiconductor v. Nichia Corp. et al.

Lead counsel for plaintiff Seoul Semiconductor in patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving light emitting semiconductor devices.  Prevailed on 10 out of 10 claim construction disputes prior to a favorable settlement.

 

Nichia Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor and Avnet

Lead counsel for defendants Seoul Semiconductor and Avnet in patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Michigan involving light emitting semiconductor devices.

 

Honeywell International v. Philips Lumileds and Cree, Inc

Lead counsel for defendant Cree in patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving use of phosphors for generating white light in semiconductor devices.

 

BridgeLux, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.

Lead counsel for Cree in multi-patent dispute pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving LED semiconductor technology. Prevailed on 22 out of 23 claim construction disputes prior to a favorable settlement.

 

Boston University and Cree, Inc. v. BridgeLux, Inc.

Lead counsel for Boston University and Cree in multi-patent dispute pending in the Northern District of California involving gallium nitride semiconductor technology.  Prevailed on 10 out of 10 claim construction disputes prior to a favorable settlement.

 

In the Matter of Certain 3G Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) Handsets and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-601)

Counsel for Respondent Samsung in Section 337 investigation (U.S. International Trade Commission) involving 3rd Generation cellular phone technology. Complaint filed by InterDigital Telecommunications Corp.

 

Inter Digital Telecommunications Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Counsel for Samsung in patent dispute pending in the District of Delaware involving patents relating to 3rd Generation cellular phone technology.

 

In the Matter of Certain Flash Memory Chips, Flash Memory Systems, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-570)

Counsel for Complainant Lexar Media, Inc. in Section 337 investigation (U.S. International Trade Commission) involving three patents relating to flash memory chips and technology. Respondents: Toshiba Corp. and Toshiba America, Inc.

 

In the Matter of Certain Color TV Receivers and Color Display Monitors and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-534)

Counsel for Complainant Thomson Licensing Inc. in Section 337 investigation (U.S. International Trade Commission) involving five patents relating to liquid crystal device monitors and manufacturing technology. Respondents: AU Optronics and BenQ.

 

In the Matter of Certain Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-516)

Lead counsel for Respondent Cornice, Inc. in Section 337 investigation (U.S. International Trade Commission) involving seven patents relating to hard disk drive technology. Complainant: Seagate Technology LLC.

 

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Cornice, Inc.

Lead counsel for defendant Cornice in patent infringement action pending in the Central District of California involving 7 patents relating to servo control, error encoding, micro-motor and read/write operation technologies used in micro hard disk drives.  Obtained favorable settlement and dismissal of action within 5 months from date of suit.

 

Seagate Technology LLC v. Cornice, Inc.

Lead counsel for defendant Cornice in patent infringement action pending in the District of Delaware involving 6 patents relating to hard disk drive technology.  Conducted Markman Claim Construction Hearing.  Obtained favorable settlement and dismissal of action two months after Markman claim construction and summary judgment arguments.

 

Cree, Inc. against Nichia Corp. (World-Wide Intellectual Property Dispute)

Counsel for Cree in a world-wide patent and trade secret dispute with Nichia Corporation involving six lawsuits pending in Pennsylvania, California, North Carolina and Japan and relating to gallium nitride and light emitting diode technology.  Obtained favorable settlement through global patent cross-licensing.

 

Trustees of Boston University and Cree Lighting Co. v. AXT, Inc.

Counsel for Boston University and Cree in patent infringement action involving LED semiconductor technology.

 

Synopsys v. Nassda Corp.

Counsel for defendant Nassda in patent infringement actions pending in the Northern District of California involving software tools for integrated circuit testing and design.

 

Synopsys v. An-Chang Deng et al.

Counsel for defendants in trade secret action involving software tools for integrated circuit testing and design.

 

Lucent v. Micron Technology

Counsel for defendant in patent infringement action involving 25 patents relating to semiconductor, speech recognition, and integrated voice mail technologies.

 

National Semiconductor against Plasma Physics Corp.

Counsel for National Semiconductor in multi-defendant action involving plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition technology for semiconductor fabrication.  Conducted Markman claim construction hearing.

ST Microelectronics against Plasma Physics Corp.: Counsel for ST Micro in multi-defendant action involving plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition technology for semiconductor fabrication.  Conducted Markman claim construction hearing.

 

Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. ST Microelectronics et al.

Counsel for ST Microelectronics in patent infringement action involving local area network technology.

 

OKI Electric Industry Co., Ltd. v. LG Semicon Co., Ltd. et al.

Counsel for OKI Electric in patent infringement action involving process and apparatus claims for making memory devices and other integrated circuits.  Also represented counterclaim defendants in suit alleging infringement of six patents covering semiconductor process technology, DRAM design and operation, computer system design, and image processing.

 

Therma-Wave against KLA-Tencor

Counsel for defendant and counterclaim plaintiff Therma-Wave in two patent infringement suits involving semiconductor metrology (ellipsometry, reflectometry) technologies.

 

Telemac Cellular Corp., v. Topp Telecom, Inc.

Counsel for defendant Topp Telecom in a patent infringement action pending in the Northern District of California relating to mobile phones having internal accounting capabilities for performing real-time call debiting.

 

Pirelli Cable Corp. v. Ciena Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Pirelli in patent infringement action involving photonics and fiber-optic communication-system patents.

 

International Electronic Technology, Inc, v. Hughes Aircraft Company, DIRECTV et al.

Counsel for defendants in a patent infringement action pending in the Central District of California involving conditional access systems for the DIRECTV direct broadcast satellite service.

 

Chromalloy, Inc. v. United Technologies, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Chromalloy in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Delaware relating to the manufacture of aircraft engine components.

 

United States Patent Office Practice

Prior to focusing his practice on patent litigation, Dr. Radulescu represented hundreds of inventors before the United States Patent Office in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications.

Education
Columbia University

(J.D., Harper Prize in Intellectual Property Law, Co-recipient, 1991)

 

Cornell University

(Ph.D., Electrical Engineering, 1988)

 

Case Western Reserve University
(B.S., with High Honors, Electrical Engineering, Applied Physics, 1983)
Prior Associations
Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Partner, 2010-2013

 

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Litigation Partner & Associate, 1997-2010

 

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson

Associate, 1993-1997

 

Fish & Neave

Associate, 1991-1993

Admissions

The State Bar of New York

 

United States Federal Courts

Southern District of New York
Eastern District of New York
District of Colorado
Eastern District of Michigan

 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

 

Registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

 
 

The Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6910, New York, NY 10118  Phone: (646) 502-5950
Radulescu LLP. All rights are reserved  ©2019