David Caves leads a complex civil litigation practice with a focus on high-stakes commercial and IP disputes. David is an experienced trial and appellate advocate who has litigated significant matters in courts and arbitral arenas throughout the United States. He has extensive experience managing complex, multi-jurisdiction litigation and works with clients to develop litigation strategies to efficiently and aggressively position matters for a successful resolution. David advises clients on a range of complex matters, with a particular focus on disputes involving trade secrets, copyright and trademark infringement, patents, non-competition agreements, antitrust, RICO, and insurance coverage.
David graduated from the University of Chicago Law School and Northwestern University. He joined the firm in 2016 from a trial-focused litigation boutique and is an original member of the firm’s Chicago office. David is the current chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property practice group. He is active in several bar organizations, currently serving as a co-chair of the American Bar Association’s IP Litigation Trade Secrets Committee.
Assistant's Phone: 319-861-8704
Assistant Email: email@example.com
- Illinois State Courts
- Iowa State Courts
- United States District Court for the Northern and Central Districts of Illinois
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
- United States District Court for the Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
- United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Professional and Community Affiliations
- American Bar Association
- Antitrust Section
- Intellectual Property Section
- Litigation Section
- Serpentec, Inc. v. Weems Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-07146 (N.D. Ill.). Represented a manufacturer of tools and equipment in trademark infringement litigation. Claims included trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, tortious interference, consumer fraud, and breach of a trademark licensing agreement.
- Lynx System Developers, Inc., et al. v. Zebra Technology Corp., et al. Case No. 15-cv-12297 (D. Mass.). Represented Zebra Technologies and affiliated defendants in a dispute over patent and trade secret rights in Zebra’s radio frequency identification (RFID) technology for player tracking devices used by the National Football League. Claims included misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, declaratory judgment of patent invalidity for inequitable conduct, unfair competition, unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, breach of contract, and tortious interference.
- CMI Roadbuilding, Inc. v. Iowa Parts, Inc., et al. Case No. 16-cv-0033 (N.D. Iowa). Counsel for a defendant in a trade secrets dispute over engineering drawings and machine parts used to fabricate equipment in the asphalt industry. The plaintiff asserted claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Copyright Act, and breach of a non-disclosure agreement.
- Incapital LLC v. BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC, et al. Case No. 13-CH-3995 (Illinois Chancery Division). Counsel for a financial services firm in litigation resulting from its hiring of key employees from a competing firm. Claims included breach of employment agreements and misappropriation of proprietary information. Successfully defended against a TRO motion. The case was ultimately resolved in arbitration with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. v. LaSalle Bank, N.A. Case No. 11-cv-2884 (N.D. Ill.). Counsel for a financial institution as trustee of a securitization trust and a mortgage loan servicer in litigation with another financial institution over breach of warranties in connection with the sale of securitized commercial real estate mortgage loans.
- Gnutti Transfer, S.p.A. v. Kaufman Mfg. Co. Case No. 09-cv-3735 (N.D. Ill.). Counsel for a machine products manufacturer in litigation with an international competitor. The case involved claims for violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, copyright infringement, consumer fraud, and violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
- UTStarcom, Inc. v. Starent Networks, Corp., et al. Case No. 07-cv-2582 (N.D. Ill.) Counsel for the defendant, a developer of infrastructure technology for mobile networks. Claims in the 24-count complaint included misappropriation of trade secrets, patent infringement, breach of contract, and conspiracy. The technology involved infrastructure for routing data messages through tunnels in communication networks using Mobile IP.