David M. Peterson

I'll research this attorney carefully, given the name is fairly common.

The Kansas City attorney and the "inventor" hits are clearly different people. Let me verify the Susman Godfrey attorney's specifics and the tracked case's status.

David M. Peterson — Patent Litigation Profile

Note: the tracked "Counsel" designation in the case data appears to reflect his docket role in a single case; his public bio identifies him as a partner at Susman Godfrey in Houston. A different David M. Peterson practices personal injury law in Kansas City, and unrelated "David Peterson" patent inventors appear in USPTO records — neither is this attorney.

Specialty / focus areas. Peterson's patent work sits in computer hardware and software rather than pharma or mechanical arts. His two largest patent matters involved consumer-device processor technology (MicroUnity's "mediaprocessor" patents asserted against smartphone and tablet makers) and cloud gaming / remote graphics streaming (Intellectual Pixels' "Image Display System with Visual Server" family covering server-side image generation and streaming to thin clients). Per the Susman Godfrey bio, his patent work is part of a broader generalist practice spanning antitrust, bankruptcy, securities, class actions and technology disputes — he is not a career patent specialist.

Side preference. On the patent side he has consistently represented patent owners/plaintiffs: MicroUnity (asserting against Apple, Samsung, HTC, LG, Nokia, Qualcomm, TI, AT&T and Verizon), Queen's University (patent-agent privilege appeal), and Intellectual Pixels (suing Sony). The tracked data is consistent — one plaintiff-side appearance, zero defendant-side — but the sample is too thin to call it a firm preference; his commercial litigation practice runs both sides, and firm-level patent work includes defense of operating companies.

Firm context. Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Houston), where he became partner in 2012. Before joining he clerked for Judge Priscilla R. Owen on the Fifth Circuit. No prior firm history or in-house role is reported; he has remained at Susman Godfrey.

Notable matters. Intellectual Pixels Ltd. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (C.D. Cal. No. 8:19-cv-01432) is the tracked case: IPL alleges PlayStation Now and Remote Play infringe patents developed by 3Dlabs. The outcome has been mixed for his client — in the parallel IPR (IPR2021-00237), the PTAB's second final written decision held claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,109 unpatentable as obvious, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in a precedential July 10, 2026 decision (Dyk, Stoll, Stark). Notably, that IPR and appeal were handled by other counsel for IPL (Armond Wilson LLP), with WilmerHale for Sony; Peterson's involvement is on the district court side, and I found no reported final judgment in the district court action. In MicroUnity Systems Engineering v. Apple et al., he was on the team that won two favorable claim constructions and settled confidentially weeks before trial. He was also part of the Susman Godfrey team in In re Queen's University at Kingston (Fed. Cir. 2016), which established first-ever recognition of patent-agent privilege — though Ian Crosby argued that appeal.

PTAB / IPR experience. No public evidence located that Peterson personally appears before the PTAB in IPR/PGR proceedings; the IPR involving his client was prosecuted by separate IPR counsel. Treat him as district-court-focused.

Bar / education. J.D., University of Texas School of Law (high honors; Order of the Coif; Articles Editor, Texas Law Review); clerkship with Judge Priscilla R. Owen, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Specific state bar admissions were not itemized in the sources reviewed.