David A. Prange

David is a skilled courtroom advocate and trusted business advisor for companies facing high-stakes commercial and intellectual property disputes. As a partner in the National IP and Technology Litigation Group at Robins Kaplan and a leader of the firm’s trade secret litigation practice, David provides pragmatic advice that aligns legal strategies with business goals, guiding his clients through litigation involving patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, and complex contracts. David’s clients appreciate his leadership, integrity, and proven ability to deliver business-minded solutions for their most sophisticated commercial and IP related challenges.

David has a track record of driving successful outcomes for his clients to protect their valuable interests and mitigate exposure. For example, David was lead trial counsel for two small-business clients in a jury trial on claims of breach of a licensing agreement, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and copyright infringement; on the plaintiff’s jury demand of $27.4 million, a jury delivered a complete defense verdict in favor of our clients. The plaintiff had initially demanded over $160 million. In a patent infringement case, David defeated a jury demand for lost profits damages in which the parties participated in a two-supplier market. David also obtained a complete dismissal of all claims against a Fortune 500 medical device company in a dispute involving unjust enrichment claims and allegations of trade secret misappropriation and patent inventorship.

David also helps his clients capitalize on the value of their IP assets through vigorous enforcement, even against entire industries. He is trial and conflicts counsel for plaintiff TQ Delta in a series of related lawsuits alleging infringement of patents covering Digital Subscriber Line modem technology, for which TQ Delta has the largest patent portfolio in the industry. David’s record of success also includes a jury verdict against Apple, resulting in a judgment of more than $12 million, for infringing patents covering audio player technology, as well as multiple confidential settlements in the maritime navigation industry involving the assertion of Honeywell navigation and display patents applicable for navigating aircraft.

As an experienced trial attorney and counselor, David has represented clients from individual inventors and small businesses to Fortune 500 companies in the assertion and defense of their contractual and intellectual property rights. Litigated technologies include the hardware and software of personal electronics; communication protocols (wired and wireless) and sensor technologies; aircraft navigation, fail-safe, and GPS systems; aircraft flame barrier laminates; irrigation controllers and sensor integration; mechanical vehicle transmissions; consumer and commercial water purification and remediation systems; lithium battery technology; various medical device technologies; and computer payroll processing software.

David has appeared in federal district courts across the country, the International Trade Commission, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as well as in state and federal appellate courts. David is licensed before the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a registered patent attorney. Outside of the courtroom, clients have engaged David to find additional revenue for patent assets, whether by assertion or sale, and further considering and advising on SEP and FRAND strategies.

David is a frequent speaker and author on trade secret and patent issues. In addition, David also participates with the Sedona Conference on its working group regarding trade secrets, to help develop guidance for companies and litigants on how to address trade secret protection and disputes.

When not practicing law, David can likely be found on the sideline of a soccer, hockey, or softball game, or a dance competition, for one of his three children.

Education

• University of Nebraska - Lincoln College of Law, J.D., with High Distinction, Order of the Coif  
• Saint Olaf College, B.A. in Biology, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa

Representative Matters

Recent Results:

Lead trial counsel for defendants Erie Custom Computer Applications, Inc. and Payroll World, Inc. in MPAY, Inc. v. Erie Custom Computer Applications, Inc. and Payroll World, Inc. (D. Minn. Case No. 0:19-cv-00704) involving claims of direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement, breach of contract, and tortious interference for the use and distribution of payroll processing software. Venued in Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota. At trial, on plaintiff’s jury demand of $27.4 million, a jury found defendants ECCA and Payroll World not liable on all claims because the complained conduct was licensed under the disputed contract. This jury verdict concluded a complete defense on all claims asserted (including additional copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims relating to the use of source code), resulting in zero liability on claims valued by plaintiff of over $160 million. Responsible as lead trial and litigation counsel.

Lead trial counsel for defendants Erie Custom Computer Applications, Inc., Payroll World, Inc., and Douglas Starr in MPAY, Inc. v. Kevin Clayton et al. (Minn. Dist. Ct. Hennepin County Case No. 27-CV-22-) involving claims of limited liability company dissolution, Minnesota statutory breach of fiduciary duty, common law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and civil conspiracy for the development and licensing of payroll processing software. Defendant clients asserted counterclaims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and declaratory judgment of change in control. At summary judgment, the court dismissed several claims as derivative and permitted other claims to proceed to trial. After a federal jury found no liability on all claims in MPAY, Inc. v. Erie Custom Computer Applications, Inc. et al. (D. Minn. Case No. 0:19-cv-00704), the state district court granted a renewed motion for summary judgment on res judicata, and permitting a trial on all defendant counterclaims. The parties settled all litigation on confidential terms following the Court’s order on the renewed motion for summary judgment. Responsible as lead trial and litigation counsel.

Lead counsel for defendants Erie Custom Computer Applications, Inc., Payroll World, Inc. and Douglas Starr in MPAY, Inc. v. OnePoint Solutions, LLC et al. (Minn. Dist. Ct. Hennepin County Case No. 27-CV-19-4069) involving derivative lawsuit claims of limited liability company dissolution, Minnesota statutory breach of fiduciary duty, common law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and civil conspiracy for the development and licensing of payroll processing software. Following appointment of and investigation by a Special Litigation Committee (SLC), the SLC determined there were no claims on which the company (OnePoint Solutions) should pursue against Defendants. The case settled on confidential terms following the filing of a motion to dismiss all claims.

Counsel for Xylem Dewatering Solutions in Field Intelligence, Inc. v. Xylem Dewatering Solutions, Inc. (D.N.J. 1:19-cv-20590) and Xylem Dewatering Solutions, Inc. v. Field Intelligence, Inc. (AAA 01-21-0000-3099) involving claims of breach of contract of a services supply contract, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for the development and supply of remote monitoring systems for large capacity water pumps. Following denial of Field Intelligence’s motion for a preliminary injunction and commencement of discovery, Xylem initiated arbitration pursuant to a separately implicated NDA and the parties cross-moved to stay the district court case or enjoin the arbitration. The district court enjoined the arbitration, and Xylem appealed. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, vacated the injunction entered by the district court that stayed the arbitration, and remanded for consideration of a stay of proceedings. Field Intelligence, Inc, v. Xylem Dewatering Solutions Inc., No. 21-2087 (3d. Cir. Sept. 13, 2022). Following the decision of the Third Circuit, the case settled on confidential terms.

Patent:

Represented plaintiff Wapp Tech in Wapp Tech Limited Partnership v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (E.D. Tex. No. 4:21-cv-00671) and Wapp Tech Limited Partnership v. Bank of America N.A. (E.D. Tex. No. 4:21-cv-00670), a patent infringement litigation against Wells Fargo and Bank of America in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Asserted infringement of five patents covering technologies relating to mobile application development and testing. Each case resolved successfully on confidential terms prior to trial.

Trial counsel for plaintiff TQ Delta in TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc. (D. Del. 1-13-cv-01835) involving a patent addressing line bonding technology used by Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) modems that allows an Internet service provider to double transmission speed. Venued in the District of Delaware. At trial, a jury found defendant 2Wire infringed the patent asserted by TQ Delta and that the patent was not invalid. Responsible for the direct and cross-examination of expert witnesses regarding the source code operation of accused devices using Broadcom semiconductor chips

Trial counsel for plaintiff TQ Delta in TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc. (D. Del. 1-13-cv-01835) involving patents addressing memory sharing for data packet transmission used by Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) modems. Venued in the District of Delaware. At trial, a jury found defendant 2Wire infringed three TQ Delta patents and that the patents were not invalid. Responsible for the direct and cross-examination of expert witnesses regarding the operation of accused devices using Broadcom semiconductor chips, case strategy, as well as cross-examination of third-party Broadcom appearing on behalf of 2Wire.

Trial counsel for defendant Unifrax in E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC (D. Del. 1-14-cv-01250) involving a patent addressing flame barrier laminates used in commercial aircraft. Venued in the District of Delaware. At trial successfully defeated a claim for lost profit damages in a controlled two-supplier market. Responsible for case strategy, day-to-day case management, trial witness presentation and cross-examination for lay and expert witnesses, and lead defense of damages claims.

Trial counsel in Personal Audio LLC v. Apple Inc. (E.D. Tex. 9-09-cv-00111), a patent infringement case in which a Texas federal jury awarded our client, Personal Audio LLC, $8 million in damages for infringing a patent for an audio player that can download or receive navigable playlists. The jury found that Apple’s iPods infringed the patent. The court also awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,182,331 for a total judgment of $12,182,331.

Trial counsel for Petitioner in The Toro Company v. MTD Products Co., IPR No. 2016-00194 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,011,458 directed to mechanical transmission linkages for zero-turn-radius vehicles. Successfully invalidated all challenged claims at the PTAB; before resolution on appeal the matter resolved on confidential terms.

Trial counsel for Petitioner in The Toro Company v. MTD Products Co., IPR No. 2016-00219 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,136,613 directed to mechanical transmission linkages for zero turn radius vehicles. Successfully invalidated all challenged claims at the PTAB; PTAB decision affirmed on appeal.

Counsel for defendant Toro in MTD Products Co. v. The Toro Company (N.D. Ohio 1-16-cv-00297) in a business competitor suit involving three mechanical transmission linkage patents for zero-turn-radius vehicles. Venued in the Northern District of Ohio. Lead case strategy and day-to-day case management and development. Invalidated two patents via IPR and challenged venue, achieving withdrawal of preliminary injunction motion based on third patent written in view of the accused product. Following withdrawal of the preliminary injunction motion, the case resolved on confidential terms.

Counsel for Sensus USA in Badger Meter, Inc. v. Sensus USA, Inc. (E.D. WI. 2-16-cv-00789) and Sensus USA, Inc. v. Badger Meter, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 5-16-cv-03376) involving a patent addressing flow control metering technology for fluid distribution. Multiple actions venued in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Northern District of California. Responsible for strategy development and all aspects of day-to-day case management and claim and defense development. The case resolved between competitors on confidential terms following cross-motions challenging venue and personal jurisdiction.

Counsel for defendant Sensus USA in GroupChatter LLC v. Sensus USA, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 6-15-cv-00863) involving patents addressing wireless communication protocols for utility metering. Venued in the Eastern District of Texas. Responsible for strategy development and all aspects of day-to-day case management and claim and defense development, and management of joint defense group. The case resolved on confidential terms following 35 U.S.C. § 101 patent eligibility and venue challenges.

Represented a patent owner in four inter partes review proceedings filed on one patent involving lithium battery separator technology.

Counsel for plaintiff in Honeywell International, Inc. v. Furuno Electric Co., Ltd, Navico, Inc., and Raymarine PLC (D. Minn. 0-09-cv-03405) involving patents addressing GPS navigation and control, and navigation displays for commercial aircraft and other vehicles. Venued in the District of Minnesota. Responsible for strategy development and all aspects of day-to-day case management and claim and defense development. The dispute against each defendant resolved on confidential terms.

Represented Honeywell International Inc. in In re Certain GPS Navigation Products, Components Thereof, and Related Software in the Internal Trade Commission (ITC-337-TA-783). Defended Honeywell on claims of patent infringement relating to aeronautical display systems against Furuno Electric Co. Dispute resolved in settlement.

Counsel for multiple clients involved in the licensing and assertion of standard essential patents involving standards 3G, 4G, LTE, ADSL2/ADSL2+, VDSL, H.264, HEVC, and VP9 for wireless handsets, infrastructure transmission, DSL, video encoding/decoding, and other related technologies.

Represented multiple defendants in a federal patent infringement action involving consumer refrigerator replacement water filters. Resolved in settlement following fact discovery. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Represented multiple defendants in a federal patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and false advertising action involving soil monitoring and wireless communication technology. Resolved in mediated settlement following Markman ruling and completion of fact discovery. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Trade Secret:

Counsel representing Honeywell International Inc. in a trade secret and breach of contract dispute with Ophir Corporation involving LIDAR-based optical air data systems for navigating aircraft. Settled the case on behalf of Honeywell after previously prevailing on a motion for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction. The dispute was venued in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona as Case No. CV-17-02083-PHX-GMS.

Lead counsel for defendant Medtronic in Thompson et al. v. Medtronic, Inc. et al. involving patent inventorship and unjust enrichment claims, and allegations of trade secret misappropriation. Venued in the Western District of Tennessee. Coordinated joint defense group and successfully dismissed all claims on motion practice before commencement of discovery following removal to federal court and assertion of preemption of common law claims by the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secret Act.

Represented multiple defendants in a federal patent infringement, trade secret, and false advertising lawsuit involving soil monitoring and wireless communication technology. Resolved in mediated settlement following Markman ruling and completion of fact and expert discovery. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Trademark:

Represented an international association in a federal trademark infringement lawsuit involving the trademark NEUROLOGY and corresponding publication. Resolved as part of related business agreement. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Trial counsel in a trademark application opposition regarding the trademark BRAIN MATTERS before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Resolved during testimony phase of opposition proceeding. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Represented owner of the trademark COCO BUTTER FORMULA in federal trademark infringement lawsuit. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Pro Bono:

Lead trial counsel for the Guardian ad Litem of a child in In re A.M.C. Following a three-day trial a district court granted the Guardian’s petition to terminate the parental rights of the parents’ and place the child up for adoption. Decision affirmed on appeal.

Lead counsel for defendant in Clarey v. Krishnaswamy, a defamation action based on internet postings. Obtained dismissal with prejudice. Case recognized as a 2007 “Lawsuits of the Year,” by Minnesota Law & Politics. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Lead counsel for officers and directors and a nonprofit in a series of cases involving corporate control and contractual claims for attorney fees indemnification. Resolved declaratory relief claims related to corporate control in favor of officers and director clients, and defeated subsequent claim for attorney fees on summary judgment resulting in no loss to the society or individual directors and officers. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

• Listed in The Best Lawyers in America (2025 edition) 
• Recognized by Lawyers of Distinction for Excellence in Intellectual Property Law (2022-2023)
• Named an "Attorney of the Year," Minnesota Lawyer (2022)
• Named to America's Top 100 List for Bet-the-Company Litigators (2020) 
• Named a "Minnesota Rising Star," Super Lawyers (2011-2015)
• ABA Military Pro Bono Project Outstanding Services Award (2018)
• Recognized by Minnesota Law & Politics in 2007 “Lawsuits of the Year” for representing the defendant in Clarey v. Krishnaswamy

Civic

• Edina Soccer Club, Board Member (2019-2021)
• Northwest Suburban Chapter of Pheasants Forever, Board Member (2012-2017)

Professional

• American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
• Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)
• Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA)
• Licensing Executives Society USA & Canada (LES)

Speeches

• Strategies for Licensing AI: A Litigation Perspective
  Licensing Executives Society International, Minneapolis, Minnesota (December 12, 2024)

• Trends in Trade Secret Litigation
  Panelist, Licensing Executives Society Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana (October 22, 2024)
• Learning from License Agreement Disputes: Insights and Lessons Learned to Improve Your Contracts and Mitigate Risk; Lessons Learned in Licensing
  Licensing Executives Society, Ames, Iowa (May 20, 2024)
• Language in License Agreements: Insights and Lessons Learned
  Licensing Executives Society, Minneapolis, Minnesota (October 11, 2023)
• Protecting Trade Secrets and Confidential Information
  Panelist, American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), Webinar (August 30, 2023)
• From Licensing to Litigation: Strategies for Protecting Software IP Assets
  Panelist, IPWatchdog Artificial Intelligence Masters™️ 2023, Ashburn, Virginia (March 7, 2023)
• United States Patent Litigation: Considerations for Increasing Your Odds and Reducing Your Costs
  Vietnam IP Association, Webinar (September 20-21, 2022)
• The Expanding Toolbox: Changes in Law Firm Contingency and AFA Models
  Panelist, The 4th Annual LF Dealmakers Forum, New York, New York (September 30, 2021)
  
• Trade Secrets Snapshot – Protecting Confidential Information in the Evolving Workplace
  IP for In-House Counsel presented by Minnesota Continuing Legal Education, Webinar (May 26, 2021)
• How In-House Counsel Responded to the Pandemic
  Panelist, IP for In-House Counsel presented by Minnesota Continuing Legal Education, Webinar (May 26, 2021)
• Trade Secret as a Mechanism for Protecting AI/ML Development
  Moderator, Second Annual AI Legal Summit, Webinar (May 19, 2021)
• Key Issues in Cross-Border Trade Secret Protection and Litigation
  Panelist, Robins Kaplan LLP and Lewis Silkin LLP, Webinar (April 20, 2021)
• Protecting Confidential Information in the Evolving Workplace: Strategies for Avoiding the Loss of Company Secrets
  Co-Presenter, Minnesota IP Law Association (MIPLA), Webinar (September 16, 2020)
• Lost Profits: How to Win, How to Lose, and the Buzz of Apportionment, 
  Boston Patent Law Association Licensing and Litigation Committees Joint Event: Symposium on Patent Licensing and Damages, Boston, Massachusetts (November 19, 2019) 
• A Starting Point for Standard Essential Patents
  Minnesota CLE Seminar (March 22, 2019)
• The US Jury Trial and the Role of Juries in Resolving IP Technology Disputes
  HSML China Symposium (August 3, 2018)
• The Protection of Trade Secrets Under US Law
  HSML China Symposium (August 1, 2018)
• Panel on Best Practices in Trade Secret Litigation
  Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis, Minnesota (April 17, 2018)
• Protecting Digital Property Innovation
  Webinar, Minnesota CLE (October 9, 2017)
• With Millions of Dollars at Stake
  Licensing Executives Society, Seattle, Washington (September 20, 2017)
• Well Kept Secrets A Panel Discussion about the Defend Trade Secrets Act
  Federal Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section, Minneapolis, Minnesota (May 25, 2017)
• Facebook and Ubers Billion Dollar Headache
  Panelist, Intellectual Property Magazine, Webinar (April 27, 2017)
• Litigating Trade Secret Cases: Early Strategic Considerations
  Mitchell Hamline School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota (April 21, 2017)
• Protecting Innovation in a Digital World
  Palo Alto, California (March 21, 2017)
• Compiling Strategies for Protecting IP in Software
  PRG Conference, Orlando, Florida (April 12, 2015)
• Inter Partes Review and Life Sciences: How Your Patent Could Be Killed In About a Year
  MedTech Investing Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota (May 21, 2014)
• Introduction to Patent Law - A Practical Perspective
  Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter, Judicial Law Clerk Patent Law Training, Minneapolis, Minnesota (October 13, 2011)
• Trademark Surveys: How to Use Them…Wisely
  Intellectual Property Institute, with Ernest W. Grumbles, III (September 28, 2007)

Media Mentions

• "Licensing Trade Secrets: A ‘Nuanced And Risky’ Endeavour," IAM (June 28, 2024)
• "The Sedona Conference Commentary on the Governance and Management of Trade Secrets," The Sedona Conference (July 2023)
• "2022 Attorneys of the Year: MPAY v. Erie Custom Computer Applications Inc., and Payroll World, Inc." Minnesota Lawyer (February 16, 2023)
• "3rd Circuit: Courts, Not Arbitrators, Decide Questions of Contract Supersession," New Jersey Law Journal (September 15, 2022)
• "Water Pump Biz Dispute Can Be Arbitrated, 3rd Circ. Rules," Law360 (September 13, 2022)
• "How to protect trade secrets for emerging tech," Managing IP (July 26, 2022)
• "3rd Circ. Questions Nixed Arbitration In Water Pump Biz Fight," Law360 (January 11, 2022)
• "Simple steps to protecting confidential information in the global economy," Managing IP (October 5, 2021)
• "The Next Generation of IP and Technology Trial Lawyers," Attorney at Law (October 5, 2020)
• "Biotechnology & Trade Secret Protection," Bloomberg Law (July 15, 2021)
• "How to protect algorithms as intellectual property," CSO (July 13, 2020) 
• "IP Insurers See Their Time as Now With Covid-19 In Background," Bloomberg Law (June 25, 2020) 
• "Del. Jury Sides with TQ Delta in DSL Patent Trial," Law360 (May 23, 2019)
• "Fed. Circ. Upended Claim Construction Rules, Unifrax Says," Law360 (May 21, 2019)
• "DuPont Fights Do-Over Of Its $3.3M Patent Win," Law360 (July 18, 2017)
• "Law360 Names Attys Who Moved Up The Firm Ranks In Q1," Law360 (April 28, 2017)
• "Amazon's Kindle Fire Infringes Two Playlist Patents: Suit," Law360 (November 22, 2011)
• "Samsung, HTC, Others Sued Over Music Playlist Patent," Law360 (September 13, 2011)
• "Apple Can't Shake $8M Verdict In Playlist IP Fight," Law360 (August 19, 2011)