David F. Nickel

Direct: (202) 822-4104
Email: dnickel@fostermurphy.com

David Nickel focuses his practice on the representation of U.S. and foreign clients in Section 337 proceedings involving unfair trade practices, including patent, trademark and copyright infringement, and misappropriation of trade secrets. For over 15 years, he has represented complainants and respondents based in the United States, Europe, and Asia in more than 100 Section 337 investigations before the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Nickel also engages in enforcement issues related to Section 337 exclusion orders before United States Customs and Border Protection. In addition, Mr. Nickel has experience in federal district court patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matters and appellate practice in customs classification.

Rankings & Recognition

  • Chambers Global: International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337) (United States), 2011-2025
  • Chambers USA: International Trade: Intellectual Property (Section 337) (National), 2010-2025
  • Super Lawyers: 2020-2025

Court Admissions

  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Maryland

Education

  • J.D., The George Washington University School of Law, 2000
  • B.A., Princeton University, 1997

Professional and Community Involvement

  • Past President, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association
  • Member, American Bar Association

Representative Engagements

  • Disposable Vaporizers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1410 (R.J. Reynolds v. Pastel Cartel, et al.).  Representing the Pastel respondents in a patent infringement investigation involving a rare request for temporary relief. Prevailed at the temporary relief phase, and the investigation is ongoing.
  • Disposable Vaporizers, Inv. No. 337-TA-1381 (R.J. Reynolds v. Pastel Cartel, Funyin, et al.).  Representing the Pastel and Funyin respondents in a novel investigation against allegations of false advertising and violations of the PACT Act. Obtained withdrawal of the complaint before the evidentiary hearing.
  • Electronic Devices and Semiconductor Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1319, -1340 (Bell Semiconductor v. AMD, Acer, et al.).  Represented respondents AMD and Acer against allegations of patent infringement.  Complainant withdrew the 1319 complaint early in the investigation, and the 1340 investigation resolved favorably for both AMD and Acer.
  • Electrical Connectors and Cages, Inv. No. 337-TA-1241 (Amphenol v. Luxshare).  Represented complainant Amphenol asserting patent infringement.  Obtained a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against the respondent.
  • Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems, Inv. No. 337-TA-1228 (AutoStore v. Ocado & Tharsus). Represented respondents Ocado and Tharsus against allegations of patent infringement.  Obtained a no violation finding before the Administrative Law Judge and at the Commission.  The dispute settled favorably for Ocado during the pendency of the appeal of the Commission Opinion.
  • Filament Light-Emitting Diodes, Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1172, -1220 (Regents of the University of California v. GE, IKEA, Satco, Home Depot, et al.).  Representing respondent IKEA in multiple investigations against allegations of patent infringement.  Complainants withdrew the 1172 complaint, and IKEA prevailed in full before the Commission in 1220.
  • Botulinum Toxin Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1145 (Allergan and Medytox v. Daewoong and Evolus).  Represented respondent Daewoong against allegations of trade secret misappropriation before the Commission and at the Federal Circuit.  The Commission Opinion was vacated by the Federal Circuit and the dispute concluded shortly thereafter.
  • Digital Television Set-Top Boxes, Inv. No. 337-TA-1041 (OpenTV, et al. v. Comcast, ARRIS, et al.).  Represented the Comcast respondents against allegations of patent infringement.  Complainants withdrew the complaint and investigation was terminated during discovery phase.
  • Cell Phone Holder for Vehicles, Inv. No. 337-TA-1028 (Nite Ize v. numerous respondents).  Represented complainant Nite Ize in an investigation alleging patent infringement.  The Commission issued a General Exclusion Order and Limited Exclusion Orders against multiple respondents.
  • Magnetic Data Storage Tapes, Inv. No. 337-TA-1012 (Fujifilm v. Sony).  Magnetic Tape Cartridges, Inv. No. 337-TA-1036 (Sony v. Fujifilm).  Magnetic Tape Cartridges, Inv. No. 337-TA-1058 (Sony v. Fujifilm).  Magnetic Tape Cartridges, Inv. No. 337-TA-1076 (Fujifilm v. Sony).  Represented Sony in a series of investigations and counter-investigations involving allegations of patent infringement in violation, modification, and enforcement proceedings before the Commission and before Customs.  The global dispute settled during the pendency of the enforcement proceeding.
  • Semiconductor Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1010 (Tessera v. Broadcom, et al.).  Represented respondents against allegations of patent infringement.  The investigation settled following a determination of no violation as to one asserted patent but before a Commission decision on review as to the other two asserted patents.
  • Carbon and Alloy Steel, Inv. No. 337-TA-1002 (U.S. Steel Corp. against the Chinese Steel Industry).  Represented respondent Masteel Group against allegations of antitrust violations and false designation of origin.  The Commission found no violation under both allegations.
  • Recombinant Factor VIII Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-956 (Baxter Healthcare v. Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk Inc.). Represented Novo Nordisk against claims of patent infringement. The parties settled after an Initial Determination of no violation.
  • Certain Protective Cases for Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-955 (Otter v. Tech21): Successfully represented Respondent Tech21 U.K. Limited in patent infringement allegations brought by Otter Products, LLC.; Otter withdrew the complaint and terminated the investigation.
  • Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof and Manuals Therefor, Inv. No. 337-TA-935 (Segway vs. numerous respondents). Successfully represented Segway and DEKA in a patent and copyright infringement investigation against numerous manufacturers and distributors of personal transportation devices; obtained a general exclusion order.
  • Certain Hemostatic Products and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-913 (Baxter v. J&J, Ethicon, Ferrosan and PCI). Represented Respondents Ferrosan in allegations of patent infringement on a medical device manufactured by Ferrosan and sold by Ethicon in the United States.  The investigation settled after the evidentiary hearing.
  • Certain TV Programs, Literary Works For TV Production And Episode Guides Pertaining To Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-886, (E.T. Radcliffe, LLC and Emir Tiar v. The Walt Disney Company and Thunderbird Films).  Successfully represented The Walt Disney Company against charges of copyright infringement related to the Mr. Young television show.  Won on summary determination of no copyright infringement.
  • Integrated Circuit Chips, Inv. No. 337-TA-859 (Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp. and Seagate Technology) Successfully represented LSI/Seagate in defensive Section 337 investigations against Realtek concerning integrated circuits.  No violation was found to exist.
  • Audiovisual Components, Inv. No. 337-TA-837 (LSI Corp. v. Funai Electric Company, Ltd, MediaTek Inc., Realtek Semiconductor Corp. and others).  Successfully represented LSI/Agere in offensive Section 337 investigations against Funai and Realtek concerning audiovisual products and semiconductor chips.  Following an April 2013 hearing, an initial determination of violation of one patent was issued.  Partial settlement after initial determination.
  • Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-753 (Rambus v. LSI Corp., et al) Successfully represented Respondents LSI and Seagate in a multi-patent infringement Section 337 investigation brought by Rambus.
  • Certain Automated Library Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-746 (Overland Storage v. BDT, IBM and Dell) Successfully represented the BDT Respondents, one of the largest manufacturers of automated library devices, in a patent-based Section 337 investigation brought by a competitor, Overland Storage.