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.
- Boston College (JD)
- New York University (BA, Computer Science)
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.
- Past Member, Board of Trustees, Ben Franklin Institute of Technology
November 16, 2020 |Blog
News & Press
January 14, 2021 | Blog | By Christina Sperry
November 16, 2020 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Peter Cuomo
November 12, 2020 | Blog | By Peter Cuomo, Daniel Weinger
Tip #2 for Avoiding IPR Institution: Focus on a few arguments that will affect all challenged claims
November 2, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Newman, Daniel Weinger
October 29, 2020 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Michael Newman, Peter Cuomo
The Art of An SEP War: A Chinese IP Court’s Recent Use of Anti-Suit Injunction Invites A Battle that It Likely Won’t Win
October 26, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Daniel Weinger
September 14, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Joseph Miller, Daniel Weinger, Kara E. Grogan
August 26, 2020 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Daniel Weinger, Matthew Galica
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
Fractured Federal Circuit Panel Finds That Sovereign Immunity Does Not Prevent Exclusive Licensee from Pursuing Unlicensed Infringement Alone
July 28, 2020 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Kara E. Grogan
News & Press
January 13, 2021
December 22, 2020
A Critique of Glory Days and How Reports of Anticompetitive Risks of Pools Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
November 4, 2020
September 24, 2020
November 20, 2019
September 18, 2019
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.