David J. Tobin

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me verify his prior firm history and any notable outcomes.

David J. Tobin — partner, McDermott Will & Emery (Dallas)

Focus. Tobin's practice is patent litigation and post-grant practice. His firm bio describes a broad technology range — telecommunications hardware and standards, computer hardware and software, e-commerce, data compression, semiconductor manufacturing and design, fossil energy production, renewable energy, medical devices, chemical processes and pharmaceutical formulations — plus secondary work in trade secret, copyright, trademark and trade dress. His academic background (BS chemical engineering, MS materials science, both UCLA) is consistent with the chemical/mechanical and energy-side matters visible in the record (e.g., he argued the '601 patent for Halliburton in the electric-fracturing IPR set). The tracked appearances, however, are concentrated almost entirely in one pharma/ANDA cluster: the Neurelis (Valtoco/diazepam nasal spray) patent family and the Padagis and Lupin Paragraph IV litigations in D. Delaware. So the docket skews pharmaceutical formulations even though his advertised range is much wider.

Side preference — both sides, and not a PAE practice. The tracked list is 4 plaintiff-side and 3 defendant-side appearances. The plaintiff-side entries are all Neurelis, Inc. as patent owner/NDA holder suing generic filers (Neurelis v. Amneal, Neurelis v. Lupin); the defendant-side entries are the mirror-image Padagis v. Neurelis declaratory-judgment/ANDA matters, where he appeared as back-up counsel. This is branded-pharma-versus-generic litigation rather than NPE/PAE assertion work, and he has also defended operating companies against large-portfolio assertions (IBM v. Airbnb in D. Del.; a wireless carrier against ten antenna-array patents). None of the tracked cases indicate a PAE plaintiff practice.

Notable matters. Web-verifiable items: in Halliburton Energy Services v. U.S. Well Services (IPR2021-01032/-01033/-01035/-01037), he appeared for petitioner Halliburton, presented argument on the '601 patent at the October 2022 consolidated hearing, and the Board invalidated 19 of 20 challenged claims; the decision was affirmed on appeal (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2023-1608). He is also on the briefs for Airbnb in IBM v. Airbnb (D. Del. 2020) and, per a July 2025 D. Del. opinion in Acuitas Therapeutics v. Alnylam, appeared as counsel for Alnylam in that § 256 inventorship dispute. His firm bio credits him with a wireless-carrier defense involving ten antenna-array patents that settled on the morning of jury deliberations (identifiable as the Fractus/T-Mobile line of Texas cases, where he appears in the 2019 record), and with a magnetic-recording IPR in which the Federal Circuit affirmed a final written decision invalidating all challenged claims — but the bio does not name that case, so I could not verify the caption or party independently. Note that two tracked case pairs (Padagis v. Neurelis; Neurelis v. Amneal) appear duplicated across firm-name variants in the source data, so the seven appearances reflect fewer than seven distinct matters.

PTAB/IPR. Yes — post-grant practice is a stated core, and the record confirms it: he is lead or back-up counsel in the Padagis IPR2025-00464/-465/-466 proceedings for patent owner Neurelis, and appeared in the Halliburton IPRs. His bio lists Patexia PTAB Intelligence Report recognition (top 1–2% PTAB attorney, 2023; top 50, 2025), and he has presented on PTAB/district court interplay.

Bar/education. Admitted in Texas (2007); registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 60,776); also admitted before the Federal Circuit; JD, University of Texas School of Law (with high honors, Order of the Coif). He practiced at Baker Botts before joining McDermott in November 2022, which the firm's announcement framed as a return to former colleagues.