David Bernard

“Keep clients in the loop, not in the dark.”

When working with a client, David thinks forward to the client’s overall goal, whether it is protecting a specific product or building a stronger overall portfolio. His mechanical engineering background and biomechanical expertise allows him to work closely with clients as an integral member of their project teams.

A registered patent attorney, David focuses his practice on patent litigation and prosecution in diverse fields including medical devices, industrial services, and telecommunications. David has experience at both the federal district and appellate court levels, including fact and expert discovery, motion practice, and claim construction. David also has experience with patent prosecution and drafting opinions on complex non-infringement, right-to-use, and patentability issues.

  • J.D.,
    Indiana University Maurer School of Law, 2014
  • B.S., Mechanical Engineering, cum laude
    The Ohio State University, 2011
Experience | Overview
  • David has helped clients at every stage of the patent process, from drafting applications, to addressing oppositions, to acceptance and issuance by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  • In a case in Federal District Court, David represented a client in FRAND-based litigation against a Standard Essential Patent owner, participating in both fact and expert discovery.
  • David is currently defending a medical device company against patent infringement allegations in Federal District Court.
  • David represented a medical device company on appeal to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed summary judgment in favor of David’s client.
Experience | Clerkships and Internships
Turocy & Watson, LLP, Cleveland, OH, Law Clerk, Summer 2012
Swagelok Company, Highland Heights, OH, Manufacturing Engineering Intern, Summer 2011
Forward Thinking
December 07, 2016

On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc. upset the framework for determining damages for infringement of a design patent in the context of a multicomponent product.  Under § 289 of the Patent Act, the infringer of a design patent is liable for all of its profit from the manufacture or sale of the infringing “article of manufacture.” 

August 01, 2016

On July 25, 2016, the Federal Circuit, in In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, reversed the final decision of an inter partes ...

June 10, 2015
Almost one year ago, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice v. CLS Bank, a decision that fundamentally changed the way software claims are analyzed for patent eligibility. Following the decision, Alice has been used aggressively by litigants ...
in the media
October 06, 2014
On October 3, 2014, our new Fall Associates were mentioned in Chicago Daily Law Bulletin in the “In The News” section. “Brinks, Gilson & Lione added David Bernard, Craig C. Bradley Jr., Yongsok Choi, Jennifer Coronel, ...
Press Releases & Events
September 15, 2014
CHICAGO—In response to rising demand for its core intellectual property legal services, Brinks Gilson & Lione recently announced the hiring of nine new associates. Brinks' incoming associates have professional and educational ...
  • Michael and Janie Maurer Scholarship Recipient, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
  • Engineering Honors Program, The Ohio State University
  • Ohio State Provost Scholarship Recipient, The Ohio State University
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • American Society of Mechanical Engineers
  • Chicago Bar Association 
  • Intellectual Property Association
Back to Top