David M. Tennant

I'll research this attorney's background and practice before writing the summary.

Let me dig into his prior firm history and the specific tracked cases.

Professional Summary — David M. Tennant

Focus areas. Tennant is a patent litigator with a PTAB-centric practice, drawing on an electrical engineering background (B.S.E.E., Virginia Tech). His disclosed technology experience spans semiconductors (process and device), microprocessors, memory, image sensors, circuits, computer hardware/servers/networks, software, consumer electronics, and mobile products — as well as medical devices, most visibly CPAP/sleep-therapy respiratory devices in the ResMed matters. Reported client work includes Meta, ResMed, Square, Walmart, Toshiba Memory, GlobalFoundries, MSI, Carl Zeiss Meditec, American Express, Bayer CropScience, and Unified Patents. There is little indication of a life-sciences/pharma trial practice; the work is overwhelmingly electrical/computer and medical-device technology.

Side preference. The tracked list is 4-of-4 "plaintiff," but in each instance the plaintiff role is IPR petitioner, not a district court infringement plaintiff — the practical posture is defense-side. Tennant's practice is predominantly representing operating companies (and the defensive aggregator Unified Patents) challenging patents asserted against them, i.e., invalidating claims asserted by NPEs and competitors. His own reported representations confirm this: petitioner-side IPRs for Meta, ResMed, Square, Walmart, Toshiba Memory, GlobalFoundries, MSI, and Unified Patents. He does handle occasional plaintiff-side district court work — e.g., a reported jury verdict of infringement and permanent injunction for Wonderland Switzerland AG against Evenflo in D. Del. — and has represented a patent owner (Carl Zeiss Meditec) in an IPR. The pattern is best described as defense-oriented with a strong petitioner-side IPR specialty.

Firm context. Tennant is a partner in the Intellectual Property practice at Paul Hastings LLP, based in Washington, D.C., joining in March 2024 as part of a six-partner IP litigation team (with Shamita Etienne-Cummings, Lisa Nguyen, Eric Lancaster, James Gagen, and Grace Wang). Prior to Paul Hastings he was at Allen & Overy (his A&O team moved from White & Case in 2021), and earlier at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (he appears as backup counsel in a 2014 IPR there). His Paul Hastings bio also states he has served as in-house counsel for a Japan-based consumer electronics manufacturer; the specific company is not named in the sourced material. The White & Case/WilmerHale steps are corroborated by firm bylines and IAM/PTAB filings but I did not locate a single authoritative career chronology, so treat the exact dates as approximate.

Notable matters and PTAB experience. PTAB/IPR work is the core of his practice — he is a registered practitioner (Reg. No. 48,362) and is ranked by Chambers (Band 4, D.C. IP: Litigation), IAM Patent 1000, and Managing IP IP Stars. He was listed as Patexia's No. 1 "best-performing" IPR petitioner attorney (reported 2023) and reports a post-institution petitioner success rate above 90%. Verified or firm-reported highlights include: ResMed — seven IPRs against Cleveland Medical Devices on CPAP/sleep-disorder patents, with final written decisions invalidating 140+ claims across seven patents (IPR2025-00157, -00159, -00247 are documented); Meta Platforms — numerous IPRs against Jawbone Innovations, Eight kHz, Angel Technologies, Wrinkl, Dialect, and Cogmedia (some still pending); Meta v. Tir Technologies — pending IPRs (IPR2026-00346/00347) tied to Tir Technologies Ltd. v. Meta Platforms, C.D. Cal. No. 8:25-cv-02345, in which Meta is the district court defendant; Unified Patents — IPRs against mCom IP, Longhorn HD, Motion Offense, Contemporary Display, and Mobile Pay, with Longhorn HD's appeal affirmed by the Federal Circuit; Square — nine IPRs invalidating 100+ claims, leading to dismissal of the underlying litigation; and MSI Computer v. Walltex, where the Federal Circuit affirmed the final written decision. One tracked entry (Unified Patents v. Cleveland Medical Devices, listed with him as Partner) is not further documented in the sources I reviewed — I could not confirm an outcome, so I flag it as unverified.

Bar / education. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reg. No. 48,362; J.D., University of New Hampshire School of Law; B.S.E.E., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (per Chambers and firm bio). No state bar admission is specified in the sourced material.