David M. Caves

Overview

David M. Caves has a nationwide litigation practice focused on high-stakes and complex business disputes. He is an innovative problem solver who can achieve goals through courtroom success and complex negotiated resolutions.

David brings nearly two decades of experience resolving highly complex litigation for his clients, navigating disputes across multiple subject areas and jurisdictions. He has represented clients in a range of disputes, with a recent focus on insurance coverage, business torts, trade secrets, class action defense, and contract litigation. As a trial attorney, David is recognized for his zealous advocacy on behalf of his clients. He has resolved highly complex matters in a variety of arenas, from the courtroom to alternative dispute tribunals.

David is keenly focused on the business implications that litigation has for his clients. He is skilled at navigating his clients through the challenges posed by litigation, helping them develop a strategy to manage costs and achieve business goals. Experienced with both offensive and defensive litigation, David proactively guides his clients through complex disputes.

Experience

Complex Commercial Litigation

FIMIC, SRL v. ADG Solutions, Inc. Case No. 1:19-cv-5636 (N.D. Ga.). Representation of a plaintiff in a dispute with a former distributor over trade secret and intellectual property rights for automatic filtration systems used in the plastic recycling industry.*
Play Beverages LLC, et al. v. Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. Case No. 1-17-1850 (Ill. App. First Dist.) Served as appellate counsel for a beverage distributor on appeal to the Illinois Court of Appeals (First District). The case involved a dispute over trademark rights and the terms of a distribution agreement.*
Serpentec, Inc. v. Weems Industries, Inc. Case No. 1:18-cv-7146 (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 licensing agreement.*
Lynx System Developers, Inc., et al. v. Zebra Technology Corp., Case No. 15-cv-12297 (D. Mass.) Represented the defendants in a dispute over patent and trade secret rights in radio frequency identification (RFID) technology for player tracking devices used by the National Football League. Claims included misappropriation of trade secrets, declaratory judgment of patent invalidity for inequitable conduct, unfair competition, unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, breach of contract, and tortious interference.*
Incapital LLC v. BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC, et al., Case No. 13-CH-3995 (Ill. Ch.). 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.*
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., Case No. 11-cv-2884 (N.D. Ill.). Represented 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.). Represented 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.) Represented a developer of infrastructure technology for mobile networks. Claims included misappropriation of trade secrets, patent infringement, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy.*

Class Action Litigation

Kashkeesh v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-03229 (N.D. Ill.). Representation of Microsoft Corporation in defense of a putative class action brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) related to Microsoft’s alleged collection and use of Uber drivers’ facial biometrics through the Uber mobile app’s verification feature.*
Moeller v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00013 (S.D. Iowa). Representation of Samsung in defense of a putative class action for violation of state consumer fraud statute and breach of warranty.*

Insurance Coverage Litigation

In re Boy Scouts of America and Delaware BSA, LLC, Case No. 20-10343 (Bankr. D. Del.). Representation of National Surety Corp. as insurer in Chapter 11 proceedings involving Debtor Boy Scouts of America.*
National Surety Corp. v. Boy Scouts of America, et al. Case No. 2017-CH-14975 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook County). Representation of an insurer in litigation to resolve coverage obligations in connection with a high-profile organization faced with numerous sexual abuse claims. Also representation of insurers in similar litigation throughout the United States. See, e.g., In re National Surety Corp. Case No. 05-19-01119-CV (Tex. App.–Dallas).*

* Denotes experience prior to joining Parker Hudson.