Daniel is a litigator and strategist whose practice focuses on intellectual property and technology litigation in the Federal District Courts, at the International Trade Commission, arbitration, and the Patent Office. He handles technology disputes of all kinds involving patents, trade secrets, alleged breaches of contract, and other technology related issues. His litigation experience has covered a wide range of technologies, including general software, image processing, video and audio codecs, smartphones (and other converged devices), LEDs, semiconductor circuits and fabrication processes, wireless technology standards, database technology, medical devices, and gaming. Daniel has deep experience in software related disputes, building on Daniel’s time as a computer programmer prior to attending law school. Daniel has participated in trials in Federal District Court, the ITC, arbitration, and state courts. Daniel’s work also includes representing clients through all phases of patent and trade secret strategy and litigation, both offensive and defensive, from inception of an enforcement program through final resolution, or crafting pre-litigation offensive and defensive strategies. Daniel also focuses on the needs of owners of standard essential patents, and pools for standard essential patents, on issues relating to compliance with FRAND obligations, global enforcement strategies, and licensing. 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 for the business.
Rounding out his intellectual property practice, Daniel is also active in the IP insurance market, organizing IP-based insurance transactions, underwriting IP-based insurance risks, and analyzing IP and technology-related insurance claims. Daniel also has extensive experience as lead technical role in trade secret cases, and in IP due diligence for corporate and patent specific transactions.
Daniel 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.
Prior to law school, Daniel worked as a database programmer with InterSystems, Corp., in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he specialized in programming solutions for database development with a focus primarily on integration engines used in healthcare systems.
In addition to all of this and his robust practice, Daniel is also an Adjunct Professor at Boston College Law School where he teaches a seminar on intellectual property strategies.
Experience
International Trade Commission
- Certain Flocked Swabs, Products Containing Flocked Swabs, And Methods of Using Same (337-TA-1279) - Representing Copan Italia and Copan Industries as complainants in the International Trade Commission, asserting patent infringement claims against global competitors in a case involving the use of flocking technology (common in the textile industry) in the production of biological specimen collection swabs. Evidentiary hearing is scheduled for June 2022.
- Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same (337-TA-1222) – Represented DivX, a video codec company headquartered in San Diego, in enforcing patents before the ITC in the District of Delaware. The asserted patents involve innovations relating to digital rights management and streaming media. LG and Samsung settled after the Markman order was issued, leaving TCL as the sole remaining respondent. Shortly after the seven day evidentiary hearing held in July 2021, one of the two principal suppliers of the accused streaming technology to TCL, namely Roku, stepped in and took a license to DivX’s portfolio, thus partially resolving DivX’s claims against TCL. Prior to the court issuing a decision on the merits, DivX and TCL entered into a bilateral settlement agreement resolving DivX’s remaining claims against TCl and bringing an end to all pending litigation.
- 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 Portable Communication Devices (337-TA-827) - Represented complainant in the ITC and as plaintiff in multiple parallel District of Delaware cases. Successfully licensed all respondents, including some of the largest and most recognized names in the converged device space – Amazon, LG, Motorola, Pantech Wireless, Research in Motion, Sony, and more. Cases were filed in December 2011 and settled in May 2012.
- 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
- SRAM LLC v. Princeton CarbonWorks, Inc., 9:21-cv-80581-RKA (S.D.Fla.) – Represented defendant Princeton CarbonWorks (PCW) in bet-the-company litigation, achieving a complete jury trial victory in the Southern District of Florida. SRAM, the second largest bicycle component manufacturer in the world, sued on two patents relating to high-end carbon fiber bike wheels and sought to put PCW out of business. After a two-week trial in February 2023, Mintz persuaded a nine-person jury to reach a defense verdict of no infringement on either patent, and no damages.
- Celerity IP LLC, et al. v. LG Electronics, et al., 23-cv-00316 (E.D. Tex.) – Representing patent owner of extensive portfolio of standard essential patents and its exclusive licensing agent in litigation involving five patents declared essential to 4G/LTE standard.
- Innovative Foundry Technologies LLC v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, et al., 6:19-cv-00719 (W.D. Tex) - Represented Plaintiff in enforcing 4 patents related to semiconductor manufacturing technology. The case proceeded through Markman hearing where claims were construed favorably in all four patents and a “not invalid” determination issue in response to an attempt to invalidate one patent entirely. All claims between IFT and SMIC have been confidentially settled.
- 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.
- Copan Italia SpA et al v. Puritan Medical Products Company LLC et al., 1:18-cv-00218 (D. Me) - 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.
State Court
- GalaxE.Healthcare Solutions, Inc. v. RxSense LLC, Indx. No. 654114/2019 (NYS Supr. Ct.) – Representing RxSense in defending a breach of contract action related to a software dispute, along with corresponding counterclaims. Mintz obtained favorable Frye and summary judgment rulings on all of plaintiff’s claims, and now await trial on only RxSense’s counterclaims.
Trade Secrets
- CellInfo, LLC v. American Tower Corporation, et al., (D. Mass., 18-cv-11250) & (AAA Case 01-21-0002-2206) - After a weeklong arbitration hearing before the American Arbitration Association, achieved victory in favor of client American Tower “on every cause asserted against it” by the claimant, CellInfo LLC, after nearly five years of litigation that also included the District of Massachusetts and the First Circuit Court of Appeals. CellInfo alleged, among other things, trade secret misappropriation of software, which the Arbitrator ultimately rejected and ordered CellInfo to pay nearly $6 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to American Tower, the prevailing party under the operative contract.
- RoadRunner Recycling v. Recycle Track Systems, et al., 23-cv-4804 (NDCal) - Currently representing defendants RecycleSmart Solutions and Recycle Track Systems in a trade secrets and breach of contract action filed by RoadRunner Recycling. Trial is currently scheduled for December 2024.
viewpoints
Another Implementer Hold Out Door Closes: The Death of the Anti-Suit Injunction?
February 28, 2024 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Andrew DeVoogd, Courtney Herndon, Laura Petrasky
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property — SEPs at the ITC – Are SEP Litigants and the Commission Speaking the Same “Love Language?”
August 8, 2023 | Podcast | By Daniel Weinger, Jonathan Engler
Split Decisions: Can a Complaint Serve as Knowledge of Indirect Infringement?
July 21, 2023 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Simone Yhap
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property — Bad Dog? “Bad Spaniels” at SCOTUS
June 27, 2023 | Podcast | By Daniel Weinger, Karen K. Won
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property — Avoiding Pitfalls: IP “Dos and Don’ts” for High-Tech Start-Ups
May 11, 2023 | Podcast | By Daniel Weinger, Frank Gerratana, Greg Penoyer
Avoiding Pitfalls: IP “Dos and Don’ts” for High-Tech Start Ups
February 27, 2023 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Frank Gerratana, Greg Penoyer
Apple’s Hold-out Strategy Nears End & Appears to Backfire in UK
November 9, 2022 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Daniel Weinger, James Thomson
DOJ Breaking with Big Tech Approach to SEPs
June 13, 2022 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Michael McNamara, Michael Renaud, James Thomson
News & Press
Six Mintz Attorneys Named To IAM Strategy 300 List Of Leading IP Strategists
September 09, 2022
Suppliers Out in Patent License Talks After Appeals Ruling
March 10, 2022
Uniloc Gets Second Chance to Seal Licensing Documents
February 16, 2022
Samsung, LG Settle DivX Patent Fights Over Smart TVs
July 30, 2021
Assignor Estoppel Case Could Fuel More Patent Attacks
January 13, 2021
The Big SEP Victories Of Patent Owners In 2020
December 22, 2020
A Critique of Glory Days and How Reports of Anticompetitive Risks of Pools Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
November 4, 2020
DOJ Support Of SEP Injunctions Should Stabilize Licensing
September 24, 2020
Favorable Trends For Patent Owners Post-Aqua Products
November 20, 2019
PTAB Says Mass. Biotech's Milk Patent Ineligible For Review
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.
Mintz Promotes Eleven Attorneys to Member
May 10, 2019
Novel Outcome at the ITC: Patent Claims Invalidated under Alice in the 100-Day Pilot Program
January 3, 2017
Events & Speaking
Determining Essentiality for Standard Essential Patents: Challenges, Benefits & Solutions
IPWatchdog
Webinar
Publications
- Author, "Avoiding Pitfalls: IP “Dos and Don’ts” for High-Tech Start Ups," The Licensing Journal (August 2023)
Recognition & Awards
Named to IAM Strategy 300: The World's Leading IP Strategists (2022)
Named to IAM Strategy 300: Global Leaders (2023 - 2024)
Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch - Intellectual Property Litigation (2024)
Involvement
- Past Member, Board of Trustees, Ben Franklin Institute of Technology
- Wellesley, MA Annual Town Meeting Member