Partner
Daniel Cooley, leader of Finnegan's mechanical practice group, helps companies protect, leverage, and defend their intellectual property. He handles litigation at both the trial and appellate level. Dan has served as lead counsel in proceedings in U.S. district courts, Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Dan handles all aspects of litigation, including pre-suit diligence, case strategy, discovery, depositions, dispositive and non-dispositive motion practice, trial, and appeal. He served as a law clerk to the Honorable S. Jay Plager at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and has participated in more than 40 Federal Circuit matters, arguing several. He has also participated in more than 50 post-grant proceedings, including reexamination, inter partes review (IPR), and covered business method (CBM) proceedings. He is a coauthor of The Practitioner's Guide to Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Second Edition, published by the American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law.
Dan also manages complex patent portfolios and provides opinions of counsel and clearance investigations for a variety of mechanical and electrical technologies. Dan has experience litigating and counseling clients on patent issues involving heavy machinery, wear parts, gas turbines, on-road and off-road vehicles, medical devices, outdoor products, imaging devices, feedback control systems, wearables, mobile handsets, telecommunication systems, internet technology, and other computer-related technologies.
Dan represents on a pro bono basis veterans pursuing appeals for disability claims and other parties on Federal Circuit appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board.
In Re Certain Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts and Articles Containing Same
337-TA-1236 , ITC, Judge Elliot
IPR2017-01683, -01684, -01685, PTAB, Judges Barrett, Chung, Easthom, Smith
DataTreasury Corp. v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
2:17-cv-00432, E.D. Tex., Judges Gilstrap, Payne
CBM2014-00020, -00021, PTAB, Judges Clements, Saindon, Tierney
16-1046, -1048, Fed. Cir., Judges Chen, Moore, Wallach
16-883, S. Ct.
Koninklijke Philips NV v. Wangs Alliance Corporation
Finnegan defended plaintiff Philips Lighting (now known as Signify) in a patent infringement suit relating to light-emitting diode (LED) lighting devices and power supplies and successfully defended Philips Lighting in inter partes reviews (IPRs) filed against seven patents, with claims in each patent found not unpatentable. The suit resulted in settlement.
1:14-cv-12298, D. Mass., Judge Casper
IPR2015-01289, -01290, -01292, -01293, -01294, -01453, -01455, PTAB, Judges Perry, Jefferson, Quinn
Välinge Innovation AB v. Halstead New England Corporation, The Home Depot Inc. et al.
1:16-cv-01082, D. Del., Judges Stark, Burke
Chart Inc. v. GP Strategies Corp.
3:14-cv-00097, S.D. Cal., Judges Bartick, Battaglia, Benitiz
Articles
The Role of the Administrative Procedure Act in Appeals from the PTAB The Role of the Administrative Procedure Act in Appeals from the PTAB
July/August 2024
IP LitigatorArticles
Standard Essential Patents in the Unified Patent Court Standard Essential Patents in the Unified Patent Court
May/June 2024
IP LitigatorArticles
Injunctive Relief for Standard Essential Patents in International Jurisdictions Injunctive Relief for Standard Essential Patents in International Jurisdictions
March/April 2024
Articles
Patent Marking Requirements Patent Marking Requirements
November/December 2023
IP LitigatorArticles
Using Statements from Foreign Patent Office Proceedings to Construe U.S. Patent Claims Using Statements from Foreign Patent Office Proceedings to Construe U.S. Patent Claims
September/October 2023
IP LitigatorMedia Mention
Fed. Circ. OKs Google's PTAB Wins Axing Uniloc Patents Fed. Circ. OKs Google's PTAB Wins Axing Uniloc Patents
August 31, 2021
Law360Media Mention
Caterpillar Scores Wins in Road Milling IP Fight at Fed. Circ. Caterpillar Scores Wins in Road Milling IP Fight at Fed. Circ.
February 10, 2021
Law360Commentary
Who Can Appeal PTAB Decisions? Here's What We Know Who Can Appeal PTAB Decisions? Here's What We Know
July 9, 2019
Law360Press Release
62 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2018 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 62 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2018 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll
April 5, 2019
Press Release
48 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2017 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 48 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2017 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll
February 20, 2018
Media Mention
Fed Circ. Says Federal Military Leave Provisions Are Broad Fed Circ. Says Federal Military Leave Provisions Are Broad
February 9, 2018
Law360Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.