Daniel P. Muino

Partner | Washington D.C.

dmuino@mofo.com | (202) 887-1501

dmuino@mofo.com
(202) 887-1501

Dan is an intellectual property litigator with nearly two decades of experience litigating patent, trade secret, copyright, and trademark matters in federal courts around the country and at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).    

Dan has handled high-stakes IP cases between competitors and defended clients against non-practicing patent holders. The technologies in his cases have been diverse, including self-driving vehicles, LiDAR, the Java and Android software platforms, the UNIX operating system, semiconductor fabrication, integrated circuits, IEEE 802.11 wireless networking devices, MEMS gyroscopes and accelerometers, web advertising platforms, rare earth magnets, medical devices, and barcode scanners.

Dan’s IP litigation experience includes numerous jury trials and arbitration hearings. In 2019, he was first chair at an ITC hearing defending chipmaker Renesas against patent infringement allegations. In the Waymo v. Uber trial in 2018, Dan helped lead the technology sub-team defending Uber against Waymo’s claims of trade secret misappropriation. In 2015, he acted as second chair at a seven-day patent jury trial that resulted in a verdict in favor of client Microscan. In 2012, Dan managed the trial team on behalf of Oracle in its IP lawsuit against Google over the Android operating system. Other trials and hearings involved medical devices, software products, and computer hardware.

On a pro bono basis, Dan has authored amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts concerning matters of constitutional rights. Dan previously served as a law clerk at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of constitutional rights.

Rankings

  • Recommended for Intellectual Property Litigation
    Legal 500 US 2017 and 2018
Show More

Experience

  • (Northern District of California). Representing Uber in a high-profile action brought by Waymo for alleged trade secret misappropriation pertaining to LiDAR sensors for autonomous vehicles.

  • (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-994). Representing respondent BlackBerry in an ITC investigation involving a hierarchical user interface for accessing music tracks on portable media players. Obtained an early initial determination from the ALJ finding the asserted patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

  • (Southern District of New York). Won a jury verdict of infringement, validity, and reasonable royalty damages for plaintiff Microscan in a patent case related to high-end barcode scanners.

  • (District of Delaware). Defended Palo Alto Networks against patent infringement allegations relating to firewall and intrusion prevention technology. Following a two-week jury trial, secured a mistrial based on a hung jury.

  • (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-855). Represented complainants Hitachi Metals and its U.S. affiliate in an ITC investigation involving high-strength magnets made of neodymium and other rare earth elements. Obtained favorable settlements for clients with more than two dozen respondents.

  • (Northern District of California). Won summary judgment of non-infringement for Yahoo! on two patents asserted by Augme covering Internet display advertising technology. Augme stipulated to infringement of one of Yahoo!’s patents. The case was affirmed on appeal.

  • (Northern District of California). Represented Oracle America in an action for copyright and patent infringement based on Google's inclusion of Java platform technology in the Android software platform and operating system, culminating in a month-long jury trial.

  • (District of Utah). Won a defense jury verdict for Novell following a three-week trial in which the jury determined that Novell owned the copyrights to the UNIX computer operating system. Successfully defended the judgment on appeal.

  • Obtained a complete victory for our client in high-stakes arbitration. Our client, a multinational corporation in the medical field, was accused of infringing a number of its competitor’s patents, with potential damages well into the nine-figure range. Following fact and expert discovery and a two-week evidentiary hearing, our client prevailed on either non-infringement or invalidity on every patent—an unusually complete victory for one side in the arbitration context.

  • (Northern District of Texas). Represented Yahoo! in a trademark infringement case related to keyword bidding in search engine advertising.

  • (Northern District of California). Won summary judgment of non-infringement for Alteon on a patent related to website load balancing methods, and successfully defended the judgment on appeal.

Show More
Close

Feedback

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.