Daniela concentrates her practice on intellectual property litigation, with a focus on patent litigation. She has experience representing patent owners in complex district court matters and working across all phases of litigation, including discovery, motion practice, and trial preparation. Her practice spans a range of technologies, including software, electronics, semiconductor, life sciences, pharmaceutical, and biomedical technologies.
Before joining Mintz, Daniela practiced at leading international law firms. Her experience includes managing complex patent disputes, taking and defending fact, expert, and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, and working closely with technical and damages experts. She regularly advises in-house legal and business teams on litigation strategy and case developments.
Daniela earned her JD from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, where she specialized in business law. She received her BS in chemical-nanotechnology engineering and computer programming from the University of Southern California.
She is based in the firm’s San Francisco office.
viewpoints
Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Induced Infringement in Hikma v. Amarin
June 4, 2026 | Blog | By Siegmund Gutman, T.O. Kong, David Hanna, Rich Gervase, Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Daniela Glaser, Frances Senn
In a unanimous decision handed down today, the Supreme Court delivered a tactical victory for Hikma, and a measure of guidance for other generic manufacturers. In Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889, the Court held that drug manufacturer Amarin, the reference product sponsor, failed to state a claim for active inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
Recent Insights
