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)

Involvement

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

Languages

- Hebrew

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

PTAB Presses Pause On All Arthrex Remands

May 12, 2020 | Blog | By William Meunier, Daniel Weinger, Vincent Ferraro, Matthew Galica

On Friday, May 1, 2020, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) paused all activity in the significant number of PTAB cases remanded to it from the Federal Circuit under Arthrex (discussed here). 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
On May 5, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated one decision as precedential and removed the precedential designation on another. The newly-designated precedential opinion lays out factors that the PTAB considers when asked to exercise its discretion to deny institution in light of an imminent trial.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
Last week, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, reinforced that an accused infringer can be a “prevailing party” for the purposes of seeking attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it successfully invalidates the asserted patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Federal Circuit Finds IPRs Can Circumvent Assignor Estoppel

April 27, 2020 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Vincent Ferraro, Kara E. Grogan

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit held that while assignor estoppel is applicable in district court proceedings, petitions for inter partes review continue to not be subject to the equitable remedy.  Assignor estoppel is an equitable doctrine based on the principle of fair dealing that prevents a party who divests a patent from later challenging the validity of that patent.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Attorney Fees Denied by Federal Circuit Where Case Was Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice

April 16, 2020 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Vincent Ferraro, Meena Seralathan

In an April 13, 2020, decision, the Federal Circuit held that neither a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), nor a stay of a patent lawsuit pending the results of a patent reexamination, constitute a final judicial decision for the purposes of recovery of legal fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
The Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) recently rejected a rehearing request from a petitioner where institution was denied because of the likelihood that a district court trial would occur prior to a final written decision. 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
On Thursday, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must give the parties proper notice if considering a sua sponte theory of unpatentability in relation to a motion to amend.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated two inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions as precedential and one as informative. These decisions concern PTAB’s discretion to deny institution of an IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and 314(a). 
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Federal Circuit Denies En Banc Rehearing of Panel Decision in Arthrex, Which Held PTAB Appointments Were Unconstitutional

March 25, 2020 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger, Michael Newman, Vincent Ferraro, Matthew Galica

This week the en banc Federal Circuit declined to revisit a panel ruling that found the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.  This decision is notable for at least two reasons. First, it declined to review or disturb the panel’s conclusion and its remedy—vacatur and remand of PTAB decisions made by unconstitutionally appointed APJs. Second, four of the Federal Circuit judges dissented, disagreeing with the panel’s finding and saying that its corresponding remedy improperly rewrites the statute contrary to Congressional intent.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
In a February 19, 2020 decision the Federal Circuit held that a patentee does not escape 35 U.S.C. § 287’s marking requirement merely by ceasing sales of the practicing product.  Instead, the Federal Circuit held that once a patentee (or its licensees) sell articles that practice the patent, the obligation to mark in order to obtain pre-suit damages continues regardless of whether sales of the product in question cease. 
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.