Skip to main content

Daniel B. Weinger

Member

[email protected]com

+1.617.348.1629

Share:

Daniel is an experienced litigator whose intellectual property practice focuses on patent and technology litigation at the International Trade Commission, the Federal District Courts, and the Patent Office. He handles disputes involving a wide range of technologies, including software, smartphones (and other converged devices), LEDs, semiconductor circuits and fabrication processes, and wireless technology standards.  Viewing patent and technology litigation through the lens of what is best for the business of his clients, Daniel counsels to achieve the best business result possible.  The scope of this work includes representing clients through all phases of patent strategy and litigation, both offensive and defensive, from inception of an enforcement program through final resolution. Daniel also has a deep understanding of standard essential patent issues and corresponding FRAND obligations, and regularly writes about developments in this area.

Prior to law school, Daniel worked as a database programmer with InterSystems, Corp., where he specialized in programming solutions for database development with a focus primarily on integration engines.

While Daniel focuses his practice on intellectual property related matters, he also handles other complex civil litigation related to technology and served as a Special Assistant District Attorney in the Middlesex County (MA) District Attorney's Office, based in the Framingham, MA, district court. During that time, Daniel prosecuted and tried numerous drug, larceny, breaking and entering, and motor vehicle cases in bench and jury sessions, and conducted day-to-day operations required by an ADA.

Education

  • Boston College (JD)
  • New York University (BA, Computer Science)

Experience

International Trade Commission

  • Certain Semiconductor Devices, Integrated Circuits, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1149) - Mintz represented Innovative Foundry Technologies as part of a global enforcement strategy to protect 5 asserted patents relating to semiconductor fabrication and packaging. Respondents for the ITC matter included Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Qualcomm Incorporated, MediaTek, and Vizio. Cases were simultaneously filed in U.S. District Court and internationally in Germany and China. The investigation was instituted in March of 2019 and resolved favorably prior to the conclusion of discovery in August of 2019.
  • Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Consumer Products Containing the Same (337-TA-1044) - Represented Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) as complainant in the ITC asserting patents covering graphics processing technology employed by smart devices such as televisions and handsets. Respondents include LG Electronics, VIZIO, MediaTek, and Sigma Designs, Inc. (SDI). Achieved settlement with LG prior to the conclusion of expert discovery. Following the evidentiary hearing, the presiding ALJ issued an initial determination finding a violation of Section 337 and recommending the imposition of an exclusion order against the remaining Respondents’ accused products. The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s finding of a violation on August 22, 2018. As a result, the Commission issued orders banning the importation of products made by VIZIO, MediaTek, and SDI and cease and desist orders against VIZIO and SDI.
  • Certain Communications or Computing Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-925) - Represented owner of portfolio of communications and computing patents from former enterprise communications business unit of large multinational innovation company, Enterprise System Technologies, S.A.R.L. An ITC investigation was instituted in August 2014 as to respondent entities Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and HTC Corporation. Google participated as an intervenor. The investigation resolved prior to evidentiary hearing in June of 2015.
  • Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities (337-TA-884) - Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC. Investigation was instituted in June 2013 and among the respondent entities were Panasonic, Toshiba, Vizio, and ZTE. Most respondents settled. After an evidentiary hearing held over several days in May 2014, on August 29, 2014 Mintz successfully obtained a recommendation for a Limited Exclusion Order against the remaining respondent, which chose to settle while Commission review of the Administrative Law Judge’s Initial Determination was pending.
  • Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) - Represented owners of the patent portfolio of the original Silicon Graphics, now known as Graphics Properties Holdings, as complainant in the ITC, and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Cases were filed between late 2011 and early 2012, and all were resolved by the end of January 2013. The technology at issue relates to LCD panels, central processor units, graphics processing units, and other microprocessor technology. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space – Apple, LG, Research in Motion, Samsung, and Sony.
  • Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (337-TA-804) – Represented the complainant (plaintiff) that makes LED lighting systems for use in film and TV production, at the International Trade Commission. The ITC handed down its Final Initial Determination of infringement on September 7, 2012. On January 17, 2013, the ITC issued a General Exclusion Order (GEO) against respondents based in both China and the United States. The result in this case is particularly notable because it is rare for the ITC to issue a GEO due to the rigorous criteria and careful balancing of interests that apply to requests for GEOs.

Federal District Court

  • Innovative Foundry Technologies LLC v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, et al. (W.D. Tex, 6:19-cv-00719) - Representing Plaintiff in an infringement case involving semiconductor devices and fabrication of semiconductor devices.
  • Canon Inc. v. Avigilon USA Corp. et al., (N.D. Tex., 3:18-cv-01317-K) - Defended a provider of networked video surveillance cameras, control devices, and associated software in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Texas. Also represented the defendant in simultaneous IPR proceedings before the PTAB.
  • CellInfo, LLC v. American Tower Corporation, et al., (D. Mass. No. 1:18-cv-11250) - Defended American Tower Corporation in a trade secrets action in which we successfully dismissed in favor of arbitration.
  • Copan Italia SpA, et al. v. Puritan Medical Products Company LLC, et al. (DME, 1:18-cv-00218) - Representing Copan Italia in asserting patent infringement and unfair competition claims against our client’s largest competitor in a case involving the use of flocking technology (common in the textile industry) in the production of swabs to be used for the collection of biological specimen.
  • Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. ASUS Computer International, Inc. et al (D. Del. 12-cv-210 (and others)) - Currently representing plaintiff in enforcement action relating to smartphones, televisions, tablets, computer monitors, and related technology.

Inter Partes Review

  • Successful Defense of Multiple IPRs – Represented Simplivity Corporation in two inter partes review proceedings where the PTAB denied institution, finding that the challenged claims were not unpatentable. IPR2016-01779, IPR2016-01780
  • Successfully defended validity of certain claims in patent related to video tripwire security system technology. IPR2017-01835, IPR2017-01837.

Involvement

  • Past Member, Board of Trustees, Ben Franklin Institute of Technology

Languages

- Hebrew

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Viewpoint Thumbnail

DOJ to IEEE: Yes, Injunctive Relief Should Be Available for SEPs, and Stop Saying Otherwise

September 14, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Joseph Miller, Daniel Weinger, Kara E. Grogan

Last Thursday, September 10, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) issued an updated Business Review Letter (“2020 Letter”) to the Institute of Electrical Electronics Engineers, Incorporated (“IEEE”) clarifying the DOJ’s views on licensing and enforcement practices related to standard essential patents (“SEPs”).
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail

THE SEP WORLD IN BALANCE: UK Harmonizes with Germany’s Rejection of Implementer Hold Out

August 26, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Daniel Weinger, Matthew Galica

Another major development in global standard essential patent litigation was handed down today, as the UK Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that forced an efficient infringer of essential patents to accept a global license or face an injunction.
Read more
Federal Circuit Appeals Viewpoint Thumbnail

The Standard Does Rule Them All: Federal Circuit Panel Finds Standard Sufficient to Prove Infringement for SEP Compliant Products

August 5, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Daniel Weinger, Kara E. Grogan

The Federal Circuit yesterday, in a decision likely to be celebrated by holders of standard essential patents (“SEPs”), found that it is appropriate for the jury to decide essentiality of a patent, rather than the judge during claim construction.  This decision in Godo Kaisha IP Bridge I v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd. also approved of the use of the standard as evidence of infringement where it was established that the accused products are standard compliant. 
Read more
Federal Circuit Appeals Viewpoint Thumbnail
Entities with patent-related relationships with state universities scored a victory under the rarely implicated (at least for patent practitioners) doctrine of sovereign immunity.  For patent holders, sovereign immunity comes into play when a state actor, for example a state university, enters contracts related to patents, such as in Gensetix v. Baylor College of Medicine. 
Read more
IPRs and Other Post-Grant Porceedings Viewpoint Thumbnail

IPR and Fast-Moving District Court Litigation: PTAB Formalizes the Analysis for Balancing Efficiency and Fairness

July 17, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Daniel Weinger, Adam Rizk, Serge Subach

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has designated two key institution decisions as “Informative.”  With these informative decisions, the PTAB has provided guidance on how the PTAB will apply efficiency and fairness factors that guide decisions to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) when there is a fast-moving parallel district court litigation that may reach trial before the PTAB’s final written decision would be due.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Recent oral arguments at the Fed Circuit suggest that the U.S. may be taking steps which would enhance its attractiveness for SEP patent holders looking to resolve licensing disputes.  The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on Monday, July 6th, in Godo Kaisha IP Bridge I v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., No. 19-2215, that may pave an easier path for owners of standard essential patents (“SEPs”) to prove literal infringement of products that comply with that standard. 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Judge Albright of the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) recently rejected yet another attempt by Apple to transfer a patent case to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”). Judge Albright’s June 19, 2020 order describes how Apple—not plaintiff Uniloc—was attempting to forum shop by seeking to move essentially all of its cases filed in Texas to NDCA. 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Shifting “Sands”: New Facts on the Ground Justify Institution of a Previously-Denied IPR

June 25, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Daniel Weinger, Serge Subach

In a rare reversal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) reassessed the Fintiv factors in a decision on a petition for rehearing of a previous decision denying institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”).  
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

No Fishing Allowed: Discovery of Litigation Funding Requires Articulation of Relevance Beyond Speculation

June 18, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Catherine Xu

Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently sent a warning to alleged infringers not to wait for the one year deadline to file IPR petitions, or risk discretionary denial.  On May 13, 2020, the PTAB exercised its discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”) petition filed by Apple due to the advanced state of a parallel district court litigation in the Western District of Texas.
Read more

News & Press

News Thumbnail
Mintz Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud, Member and Co-chair of the firm’s Antitrust Practice Joseph Miller, and Member Daniel Weinger co-authored a Law360 expert analysis article that examined an updated business review letter issued by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)'s Antitrust Division to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., which clarified the DOJ's views on licensing and enforcement practices related to standard essential patent (SEP)s.
News Thumbnail
Mintz Member Daniel Weinger and Associates Vincent Ferraro and Chris Duerden co-authored a recent Law360 expert analysis article that examined how the Federal Circuit’s en banc ruling in Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal has affected the motion to amend practice at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as well as other favorable trends for patent owners.
An article published by Law360 reported that following the U.S. International Trade Commission’s initial decision that Jennewein Biotechnologie GmbH’s imports infringe a Glycosyn LLC patent on human milk oligosaccharides, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Jennewein’s petition for post-grant review of a related patent.

The Mintz team representing Glycosyn at the ITC includes Michael Newman, Thomas Wintner, Michael Renaud and James Wodarski; and the Mintz team representing Glycosyn at the PTAB includes Michael Newman, Thomas Wintner, Peter Cuomo and Daniel Weinger.
This feature story notes wireless communications company ParkerVision’s request to lift a pause in its lawsuit with Apple, LG, and Qualcomm over several smartphone patents. James Wodarski, Michael McNamara, Kristina Cary, and Daniel Weinger are representing ParkerVision in the case.
In this column, Mintz attorneys James Wodarski, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, and Matthew Karambelas analyze the decision made by the ITC about patent claims that have been negated by Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International in the 100-Day Pilot Program.