直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
Daniel C. Cooley
Partner
More
vCard
  • 1875 Explorer Street
  • Suite 800
  • Reston, VA 20190-6023
+1 571 203 2778
daniel.cooley@finnegan.com daniel.cooley@finnegan.com

Daniel C. Cooley

Partner

  • +1 571 203 2778 +1 571 203 2778
  • daniel.cooley@finnegan.com daniel.cooley@finnegan.com
  • 1875 Explorer Street
  • Suite 800
  • Reston, VA 20190-6023
  • vCard

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 60 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.

 

Experience

In Re Certain Polycrystalline Diamond Compacts and Articles Containing Same

Secured a decisive victory for client US Synthetic Corp. (USS) at the ITC. After a full hearing, the ALJ found that respondents infringed multiple claims of USS’s patent and that the claims were valid and supported by a domestic industry, but an initial Commission ruling under § 101 temporarily prevented a finding of violation of Section 337. The Federal Circuit reversed the § 101 ruling, and on remand the ITC found a violation and issued a limited exclusion order barring infringing polycrystalline diamond products from entry into the United States, securing final relief for USS.

337-TA-1236, ITC, Judge Elliot

US Synthetic Corporation (USS) v. International Trade Commission (ITC)

Secured a significant victory for client US Synthetic Corporation (USS) with a precedential decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) overturning an unfavorable 35 U.S.C. § 101 eligibility ruling from the International Trade Commission (ITC).

23-1217, Fed. Cir., Judges Chen, Dyk, Stoll

Google, Inc. v. Uniloc USA

Representing petitioner Google in a series of inter partes reviews challenging Uniloc’s patents on systems and methods for initiating conference calls. Successfully secured institution and cancellation of all challenged claims in each proceeding.

IPR2017-01683, -01684, -01685, PTAB, Judges Barrett, Chung, Easthom, Smith

DataTreasury Corp. v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.

Represented petitioner Fidelity National Information Services (FIS) in CBMs of check-imaging patents known as the “Ballard” patents, which were named by Congress when it wrote Section 18 of the America Invents Act (AIA); PTAB issued final written decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, which the Federal Circuit affirmed. Also assisted FIS with mandamus petitions to the Federal Circuit that stayed the underlying litigation in the E.D. Texas.

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.

Represented global innovator of luxury vinyl tile and mechanical locking flooring in litigation to enforce a significant portfolio of patents. The case settled favorable shortly before trial.

1:16-cv-01082, D. Del., Judges Stark, Burke

More

Insights

Articles

Prosecution History Estoppel: Navigating Limits on Equivalents in Patent Litigation

Prosecution History Estoppel: Navigating Limits on Equivalents in Patent Litigation Prosecution History Estoppel: Navigating Limits on Equivalents in Patent Litigation

March/April 2026

IP Litigator

Panel Discussion

Careers in Tech and Intellectual Property Careers in Tech and Intellectual Property

February 18, 2026

Salt Lake City

Articles

When Export Controls Meet IP: Lessons from Westinghouse v. KEPCO

When Export Controls Meet IP: Lessons from Westinghouse v. KEPCO When Export Controls Meet IP: Lessons from Westinghouse v. KEPCO

January/February 2026

IP Litigator

Articles

Section 337 After Lashify: Practical Implications for Non-U.S. Companies: What the Federal Circuit’s March 2025 Decision Means for Those Who Can Credibly Bring an ITC Case

Section 337 After Lashify: Practical Implications for Non-U.S. Companies: What the Federal Circuit’s March 2025 Decision Means for Those Who Can Credibly Bring an ITC Case Section 337 After Lashify: Practical Implications for Non-U.S. Companies: What the Federal Circuit’s March 2025 Decision Means for Those Who Can Credibly Bring an ITC Case

November/December 2025

IP Litigator

Conference

IAM and WTR Live: Latin America IP Summit 2025 IAM and WTR Live: Latin America IP Summit 2025

November 4-5, 2025

Sao Paulo

Articles

Applying Collateral Estoppel between District Courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Applying Collateral Estoppel between District Courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Applying Collateral Estoppel between District Courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

September/October 2025

IP Litigator
More

News

Press Release

U.S. International Trade Commission Issues Limited Exclusion Order for US Synthetic in Investigation Against Foreign Diamond Makers U.S. International Trade Commission Issues Limited Exclusion Order for US Synthetic in Investigation Against Foreign Diamond Makers

December 23, 2025

Media Mention

ITC Bans Infringing Drill Bit Imports After Fed. Circ. Remand ITC Bans Infringing Drill Bit Imports After Fed. Circ. Remand

December 5, 2025

Law360

Award/Ranking

56 Finnegan Attorneys Recognized on the 2024 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 56 Finnegan Attorneys Recognized on the 2024 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll

April 24, 2025

DC Bar

Media Mention

Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout Outs: US Synthetic Corp. Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout Outs: US Synthetic Corp.

February 21, 2025

The AmLaw Litigation Daily

Press Release

Federal Circuit Overturns ITC Ruling to Give US Synthetic a Significant Victory Federal Circuit Overturns ITC Ruling to Give US Synthetic a Significant Victory

February 20, 2025

Media Mention

Fed. Circ. Revives Drill Bit Patent ITC Found Abstract Fed. Circ. Revives Drill Bit Patent ITC Found Abstract

February 13, 2025

Law360
More

Professional Activities

  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
Admissions and Education

Admissions

  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • District of Columbia
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Veterans Claims

Education

Georgetown University
J.D., cum laude, 2010
University of Utah
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, 2006
University of Utah
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, cum laude, 2006

Clerkships

  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Hon. S. Jay Plager

Languages

  • Portuguese

Daniel's Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
Appeals from the PTAB
Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals
Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals
ITC Section 337 Investigations and Trials
Patent Litigation and Trials
Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
Ex Parte Reexamination (EPR)
PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR
Prosecution and Portfolio Management
Opinions and Counseling

Daniel's Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
Electrical and Computer Technology
Robotics
Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
Manufacturing
Life Sciences
Medical Device and Diagnostics
Transportation and Logistics
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