Daniel P. Muino

Daniel P. Muino

Partner

Washington D.C., (202) 887-1501

Education

Harvard University (B.A., 1995)
University of Chicago Law School (J.D., 2000)

Bar Admissions

California
District of Columbia

Daniel Muino is an intellectual property litigator with more than a decade of experience litigating patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret matters in federal courts around the country and at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Mr. Muino is an editor of the firm’s MoFo@ITC web blog, which covers developments in ITC law and practice.

Mr. Muino 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 the Java and Android software platforms, the UNIX operating system, IEEE 802.11 wireless networking devices, MEMS gyroscopes and accelerometers, web advertising platforms, rare earth magnets, medical devices, and barcode scanners.

Mr. Muino’s IP litigation experience includes a number of jury trials and arbitration hearings. In 2010, following a three-week trial, a jury rendered a verdict for client Novell affirming its ownership of copyrights to the UNIX computer operating system. In 2012, Mr. Muino managed the trial team on behalf of Oracle in its IP lawsuit against Google over the Android operating system. In 2014, Mr. Muino helped secure a mistrial for defendant Palo Alto Networks in a two-week jury trial over alleged infringement of firewall patents. In 2015, Mr. Muino was second-chair at a seven-day patent jury trial that resulted in a verdict in favor of client Microscan. Other trials and hearings involved medical devices and software products.

At the ITC, Mr. Muino has represented complainants and respondents in complex, large-scale Section 337 cases.   
   
On a pro bono basis, Mr. Muino has authored amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts concerning matters of constitutional rights. Mr. Muino previously served as a law clerk at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of constitutional rights. Mr. Muino is recommended by Legal 500 US 2016 for patent litigation in the ITC.

Mr. Muino received his law degree from the University of Chicago in 2000, where he was awarded the Thomas R. Mulroy Prize for Excellence in Appellate Advocacy. He was also on the Hinton Moot Court Board. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, from Harvard University in 1995.

Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof
(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.
Microscan Systems, Inc. v. Cognex Corporation
(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.
Juniper Networks v. Palo Alto Networks
(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.
Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets and Products Containing Same
(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.
Augme Technologies LLC v. Yahoo!, Inc.
(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.
Oracle America v. Google
(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.
SCO Group v. Novell
(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.
Confidential Life Sciences Arbitration
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.
American Airlines v. Yahoo! Inc.
(Northern District of Texas). Represented Yahoo! in a trademark infringement case related to keyword bidding in search engine advertising.
Resonate v. Alteon
(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.
Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof
(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.
Microscan Systems, Inc. v. Cognex Corporation
(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.
Juniper Networks v. Palo Alto Networks
(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.
Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets and Products Containing Same
(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.
Augme Technologies LLC v. Yahoo!, Inc.
(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.
Oracle America v. Google
(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.
SCO Group v. Novell
(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.
Confidential Life Sciences Arbitration
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.
American Airlines v. Yahoo! Inc.
(Northern District of Texas). Represented Yahoo! in a trademark infringement case related to keyword bidding in search engine advertising.
Resonate v. Alteon
(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.

Email 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.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.