Click to open contact form.
Your Global Partners in the Business of Innovation

Daniel J. Melman

  • Partner
  • New York
Daniel Melman is a Partner in the Patent Litigation Group at Pearl Cohen's New York office. He is an experienced intellectual property litigation and trial attorney, with a focus on patent, trade secret and other complex matters across various technologies, including telecommunications, computer hardware and software, medical devices, electro-mechanical devices, biotechnology, financial services, e-commerce, and the internet.

BIOGRAPHY

Daniel Melman is a Partner in the Patent Litigation Group at Pearl Cohen’s New York office. He is an experienced intellectual property litigation and trial attorney, with a focus on patent, trade secret and other complex matters across various technologies, including telecommunications, computer hardware and software, medical devices, electro-mechanical devices, biotechnology, financial services, e-commerce, and the internet. He concentrates his practice on formulating and directing the protection and commercialization of intellectual property assets.

Daniel has taken lead roles in all aspects and phases of litigation, trials, and appeals in federal courts throughout the United States, in the United States Patent Office, and in the International Trade Commission as well as coordinating multinational parallel litigation proceedings. He is also registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Prior to attending law school, Daniel worked as an engineer at a Fortune 1000 leading supplier of filtration, separation, and purification technologies.

Speaking Engagements:

  • “U.S. Trade Secret Laws – What Technology Companies Should Know,” Tel Aviv, Israel, May 2, 2018
  • “David v. Goliath: Greed or Fair Play? The Evolving Market of U.S. Patent Enforcement and Monetization” – AIPPI Israel Conference, The 3rd International Convention of the Economy of Innovation, Tel-Aviv, Israel, April 30 – May 1, 2018

Publications:

  • Federal Circuit: Common Sense May Substitute For Elements Not In The Prior Art, Lexology, July 1, 2020
  • Safeguarding Trade Secrets With A Newly Remote Workforce, Law360, March 23, 2020
  • Melman, Daniel and Benowich, Sarah. Fed. Circ. Raises Evidentiary Obstacles For Patentees, Law 360,  February 5, 2020
  • Significant Patent Damages Cases Will Lead To More Rigorous Damages Proof, The New York Intellectual Property Law Association Bulletin, April/May 2011 Bulletin
  • United States Supreme Court Takes a Second Look at Patent Exhaustion, But Is It Déjà Vu Again?, International Asset Management (IAM) Magazine, 2010
  • Patentable Subject Matter in the US: Past, Present, and Future, International Asset Management (IAM) Magazine, May 2009
  • Post Markman: Claim Construction Trends, 7 RICH. J. L. & TECH. 34, Spring 2001
  • Patently Wrong: A Critical Analysis of Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 74 St. John’s L. Rev. 875, 2000

Representative Cases:

  • Syte – Visual Conception Ltd. v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 2:20-04071-BRM-ESK (D.N.J. 2020) (pending); Syte v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 1:20-CV-00909-LMM (N.D.Ga.) (pending) (Computer visual search and AI neural network technology). Representing the plaintiff patentee in multiple parallel litigations for patent infringement.
  • In the Matter of Certain Blood Separation and Cell Separation Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1147 (ITC 2019) (blood separation devices and platelet-rich plasma technology).  Lead counsel. Represented Respondents Estar Technologies, Ltd. and Eclipse MedCorp, LLC in an International Trade Commission investigation involving claims of patent infringement. Complainant withdrew its complaint – resulting in a termination of the investigation – following the Commission’s Investigative Staff’s prehearing brief agreeing with Respondents’ positions that the asserted patent was invalid and not infringed and that the Complainant lacked a domestic industry.
  • Broker Genius Inc. v. Seat Scouts LLC et al., 1:17-cv-08627 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Software as a Service, SaaS, technology). Co-lead counsel. Represented plaintiff in an action for breach of contract and unfair competition. Following entry of a preliminary injunction and a finding of contempt and award of attorney’s fees against the defendants, obtained a jury verdict on all counts, awarding $4.5M, and entry of a permanent injunction. Final judgment and permanent injunction fully affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.
  • Broker Genius Inc. v. Zalta et al., 1:17-cv-02099-SHS (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Software as a Service, SaaS, technology). Co-lead counsel. Represented plaintiff in an action for trade secrets misappropriation, copyright infringement, breach of contract, and unfair competition. Case settled favorably after entry of judgment and entry of a permanent injunction against the defendants.
  • Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 4:16-cv-00191-TUC-FRZ (D. Az. 2016) (pending) (Recombinant enzyme technology in the manufacture of Insulin drugs). Representing the plaintiff in an action for breach of the license agreement and unjust enrichment.
  • Mute First Ring Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv—00725 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (Android OS functionality). Co-lead counsel.  Represented plaintiff patent owner in an action for patent infringement.  Case settled on favorable terms.
  • Tjat Systems v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00581 (D. Del. 2016) (pending) (E-commerce and internet server technology). Co-lead counsel. Representing the plaintiff patent owner in an action for patent infringement. Successfully defeated the motion to dismiss on 101 grounds. (Case is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit.)
  • RegenLab USA LLC v. Estar Technologies Ltd., Case No. 1:16-cv-8771 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (pending); RegenLab USA LLC v. Raj Kanodia, M.D. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03845 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (pending) (blood separation devices and platelet-rich plasma technology). Lead counsel. Representing multiple defendants (foreign manufacturer, distributors, and physician end-users) in parallel litigations involving defending claims of patent infringement and assertion of antitrust counterclaims. Obtained dismissal of a foreign manufacturer for lack of personal jurisdiction; suit against physicians was voluntarily dismissed
  • Karmon v. Miambe Ltd., Case No. 1:16-cv-01643-DLC (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (dental implant devices) Lead counsel. Represented plaintiff in patent infringement suit. Case settled on favorable terms.
  • On Track Innovations Ltd. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-2224 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (near field communication and mobile devices) Represented plaintiff in patent infringement suit. Case settled favorably following successful Markman decision and summary judgment ruling of infringement.
  • Realtime Data LLC v. Morgan Stanley, Case No. 1:11cv6696 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (financial data compression) Represented plaintiff in patent infringement suit. Case settled on favorable terms.
  • LG Electronics v. Iridian, Case No. 2:04cv391 (D.N.J. 2007) (biometrics) Represented defendant in suit involving claims and counterclaims of patent and copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and antitrust violations. Case settled on favorable terms.
  • Donnelly v. Reitter & Schefenacker, Case No. 1:00cv751 (W.D. Mich. 2002) (electro-mechanical automotive devices) Represented plaintiff in patent infringement suit. Case settled favorably following successful Markman decision.
  • Litton v. Pirelli, Case No. 00-cv-10584 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (fibre optic amplifiers) Represented defendant in patent infringement suit. Case settled on favorable terms prior to trial.
  • Yeda Research and Development Company v. ImClone, Case No. 1:03cv8484, 443 F.Supp.2d 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (anti-cancer therapy) Represented plaintiff, the technology transfer company of the Weizmann Institute of Science, in an action to correct the inventorship of a patent covering the use of ImClone’s blockbuster monoclonal antibody Erbitux® (cetuximab). Case settled favorably following the trial and a decision on the merits in favor of Weizmann.
  • In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communications Equipment and Articles Therein, Inv. No. 337-TA-866 (ITC 2013) (LTE wireless communication systems) Represented Respondents Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson in ITC investigation involving claims of patent infringement. Case settled favorably following an evidentiary hearing.
  • In the Matter of Certain Computer Products, Computer Components and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-628 (ITC 2011) (wireless routers and computer power management) Represented Complainant IBM in ITC investigation involving claims of patent infringement. Case settled favorably following an evidentiary hearing.
  • Israel Bio-Engineering v. Amgen et al., Case No. 2:02cv6860 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (autoimmune disease therapeutics) Represented Defendant Yeda Research and Development Company in patent infringement suit. Obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims; affirmed on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
  • IPR2015-01317 (USPTO 2015): Detachably Integrated Battery Charger for Mobile Cell Phones and Like Devices. The represented petitioner in Inter Partes Review. IPR and related district court cases settled on favorable terms.