Skip to main content

Daniel B. Weinger

Member

[email protected]

+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 Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same (337-TA-1222) – Representing DivX, a video codec company headquartered in San Diego, as Complainant before the ITC and in District of Delaware and Eastern District of Texas actions. The asserted patents involve innovations relating to internet video and streaming media. Hearing scheduled for Summer 2021.
  • 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, 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.

Involvement

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

Languages

- Hebrew

Recent Insights

News & Press

Events

Viewpoints

Podcast Viewpoint Image
In this episode of the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property podcast, Mintz IP attorneys Drew DeVoogd and Daniel Weinger welcome guest David Duski for the first of a two-part series covering patent trial damages.
Read more
Podcast Viewpoint Image
In this episode of the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property podcast, Mintz Intellectual Property attorneys Andrew Skale and Daniel Weinger explore copyright protections for music and other creative works.
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail

Supreme Court Hammers Final Nail in the IP Bridge v. TCL Coffin

July 2, 2021 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Daniel Weinger, Kara E. Grogan

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied TCL Communication’s certiorari petition, without comment, appealing the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the essentiality of a patent claim is a question for the jury rather than judges to resolve during claim construction.  The denial of cert by the Supreme Court cements the Federal Circuit ruling which made proving infringement of standard essential patents easier by allowing reliance on the standard to show such infringement. 
Read more
Podcast Viewpoint Image
In this episode of the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property podcast, attorneys Drew DeVoogd and Dan Weinger break down the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Arthrex, where the Court found that Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are hired in violation of the Appointments Clause, and crafted a new structure for the PTAB.  The Arthrex case has far reaching implications not just in patent law, but across the administrative bodies of the federal government.
Read more
IPRs and Other Post-Grant Porceedings Viewpoint Thumbnail
When confronted with instituted IPRs, Patent Owners should identify and exploit issues that the Petition glossed over and bring those to the attention of the Board.  This will highlight for the Board important issues that the Petition failed to sufficiently address and can lead to victory for the Patent Owner. 
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail
Over the last decade, patent litigation has exploded at the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which has caused the ITC to seek out ways to increase efficiency.  Several years ago, the ITC introduced an early 100-Day pilot program to dispose of dispositive issues early on in investigations. While now a mainstay, the 100-Day pilot program is rarely utilized. 
Read more
Podcast Viewpoint Image
In this episode of our Exclusive Rights podcast series, Mintz IP attorneys Daniel Weinger and Todd B. Buck, PhD, discuss the recent decision by the Biden Administration to signal US approval of a proposal to waive intellectual property rights related to COVID-19 vaccines currently under review at the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Read more
Podcast Viewpoint Image

EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property — Basics of ITC Litigation

May 6, 2021 | Podcast | By Daniel Weinger, Andrew DeVoogd

Intellectual property rights protect your innovations and competitive position in the market.
Read more
IPRs and Other Post-Grant Porceedings Viewpoint Thumbnail

Patent Owner Tip #5 for Surviving An Instituted IPR: The Right Expert Can Save Your Patent

May 6, 2021 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Monique Winters Macek

The right expert can be the critical piece that saves the validity of your patent. Finding the right expert for a patent owner requires careful selection and due diligence. We previously detailed how your expert’s testimony can make or break your Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”).
Read more
IPRs and Other Post-Grant Porceedings Viewpoint Thumbnail

PTAB Reinforces Uneven Evidentiary Playing Field in IPRs

April 16, 2021 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Nana Liu

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently grappled with the admission into evidence of expert deposition testimony that was presumably harmful to the petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR), and barred the testimony from coming into evidence. 
Read more

News & Press

News Thumbnail
Mintz Member Daniel B. Weinger was quoted in an article published by Law360 on a case recently taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc., which will determine whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.
News Thumbnail
In this Law360 expert analysis article, Mintz Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud and Members James Wodarski and Daniel Weinger reflected on the biggest standard essential patent (SEP) victories of patent owners in 2020.
News Thumbnail
Mintz Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud, Members James Wodarski and Daniel Weinger, and Associate Kara Grogan co-authored an article published by IPWatchdog that critiques an article recently published in the University of San Diego Law titled “Glory Days: Do the Anticompetitive Risks of Standards-Essential Patent Pools Outweigh Their Procompetitive Benefits?,” which criticized patent pools, alleging inefficiencies and anticompetitive risks of pools for standard essential patents.
News Thumbnail
Mintz Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud, Members James Wodarski and Daniel Weinger, and Associate Kara Grogan co-authored an article published by IPWatchdog examining patent pools, an elective market mechanism designed to provide benefits to both innovators and implementers.
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.