直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
Daniel F. Klodowski
Partner
More
vCard
  • 901 New York Avenue, NW
  • Washington, DC 20001-4413
+1 202 408 4216
daniel.klodowski@finnegan.com daniel.klodowski@finnegan.com

Daniel F. Klodowski

Partner

  • +1 202 408 4216 +1 202 408 4216
  • daniel.klodowski@finnegan.com daniel.klodowski@finnegan.com
  • 901 New York Avenue, NW
  • Washington, DC 20001-4413
  • Two Seaport Lane
  • Boston, MA 02210-2001
  • vCard

Daniel Klodowski's practice focuses on post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), litigating patents in district court and at the International Trade Commission (ITC), and prosecuting patent applications in several mechanical and electrical technologies.

Daniel has a breadth of experience in intellectual property law, with a particular focus on post-grant proceedings before the PTAB. He has appeared in dozens of PTAB proceedings and drafted both successful petitions to invalidate patents and successful patent owner responses to maintain patent validity. He has argued before the Board at three oral hearings.

Daniel maintains an active litigation practice in district courts as well as before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the ITC. He also prosecutes patent applications in several technology areas.

Daniel has broad technical experience across the mechanical and electrical fields, including computer networking and business software, cable television networks, LCD screen technology, automotive propulsion and tire technology, medical devices, robotics, consumer electronics, consumer mechanical devices, exercise equipment, hydroelectric power generators, hydrogen fuel cells and batteries, nanotechnology, and aircraft fire suppression systems.

Daniel's pro bono experience includes representing disability claimants before administrative law judges of the Social Security Administration and assisting veterans with disability claims. He has been recognized on the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll.

Experience

Promptu Systems Corporation v. Comcast Corporation

Obtained a $240 million jury verdict for client Promptu in a patent infringement lawsuit against Comcast. The jury found that Comcast willfully infringed Promptu’s patents covering voice recognition technology for TV.

2:16-cv-06516, E.D. Pa., Judge Sanchez
22-1939, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Moore, Taranto

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC

Successfully convinced the Federal Circuit to vacate and remand adverse PTAB decisions, with the Federal Circuit finding the patent owner was not entitled to any presumption that the patented invention (related to bicycle chainring technology) was responsible for the alleged secondary considerations. On remand, the PTAB ruled in favor of client FOX Factory, finding all of SRAM’s claims unpatentable.

18-2024, -2025, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Wallach, Hughes
IPR2017-00118, -00472, PTAB, Judges Kim, Ippolito, Cherry

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corporation

Represented Promptu Systems Corporation in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and related appeals filed by Comcast Cable Communications involving voice recognition.

IPR2018-00340, -00341, -00344, -00345, PTAB, Judges Yap, Lee, Bonilla
19-1947, -1948, -2287, -2288, Fed. Cir., Judges Moore, Schall, Lourie

Travelers Indemnity Company v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLC

Represented petitioner Travelers Indemnity Company in IPRs resulting in cancellation of all challenged claims across two patents.  The Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.

18-1142, -1143, Fed. Cir., Judges Dyk, Bryson, Chen
IPR2016-00659, -00660, PTAB, Judges Deshpande, Jung, Goodson

Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc. v. Radiometer Medical ApS

Represented patent owner Radiometer in a proceeding relating to medical diagnostic equipment. The PTAB issued a decision denying institution of all grounds presented in Siemens’ IPR petition.

IPR2018-00311, PTAB, Judges Heaney, Kokoski, Abraham

Certain Soft-Edged Trampolines

Represented respondent Vuly Trampolines Pty. Inc. in patent litigation involving exercise technology. The Commission found no violation of Section 337 by Vuly.

337-TA-908, ITC, Judge Pender

More

Insights

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026 IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for December 2025 - February 2026 Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for December 2025 - February 2026

March 31, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in November 2025 to January 2026 IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in November 2025 to January 2026

March 6, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for September-November 2025 Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for September-November 2025

December 30, 2025

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in September and October 2025 IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in September and October 2025

December 19, 2025

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for August 2025 Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for August 2025

October 10, 2025

More

News

Commentary

Finnegan Team Secures $240M Jury Verdict After PTAB Success Finnegan Team Secures $240M Jury Verdict After PTAB Success

February 3, 2026

Managing Intellectual Property

Commentary

How We Won: Promptu Counsel on Its $240M Victory Against Comcast How We Won: Promptu Counsel on Its $240M Victory Against Comcast

February 2, 2026

World Intellectual Property Review

Media Mention

Law360's Legal Lions of The Week - Promptu Law360's Legal Lions of The Week - Promptu

January 30, 2026

Law360

Media Mention

Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs: Promptu Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs: Promptu

January 30, 2026

The AmLaw Litigation Daily

Media Mention

Comcast Hit With $240M Verdict in Voice Recognition IP Trial Comcast Hit With $240M Verdict in Voice Recognition IP Trial

January 27, 2026

Law360

Press Release

Finnegan Secures $240 Million Jury Verdict for Promptu in Patent Case Against Comcast Finnegan Secures $240 Million Jury Verdict for Promptu in Patent Case Against Comcast

January 26, 2026

More

Professional Activities

  • American Bar Association
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Licensing Executives Society
  • PTAB Bar Association
Admissions and Education

Admissions

  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • District of Columbia
  • Massachusetts
  • U.S. District Court, D. Massachusetts
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Veterans Claims

Education

University of Pittsburgh
M.B.A., 2013
University of Pittsburgh Law School
J.D., cum laude, 2013
Pennsylvania State University
B.S., Engineering Science, with distinction, 2010

Daniel's Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
Appeals from the PTAB
Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
Arbitration and Other ADR
ITC Section 337 Investigations and Trials
Patent Litigation and Trials
Pretrial Strategies
Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR
Prosecution and Portfolio Management
Patent Drafting and Prosecution

Daniel's Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
Electrical and Computer Technology
Electronic Devices and Components
Nanotechnology
Robotics
Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
Additive Manufacturing
Communications
Financial Services and Business Systems
Consumer Goods and Services
Consumer Products
Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
Gaming
Sports, Fitness, and Outdoor Recreation
Life Sciences
Medical Device and Diagnostics
Transportation and Logistics
Aerospace, Aviation, and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)
Automotive and Smart Mobility Tech

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP