Daniel Rabinowitz
212-430-2778
drabinowitz@fenwick.com
Associate
Litigation
Daniel
Rabinowitz
Daniel
Rabinowitz
Associate
Litigation
Daniel represents technology companies in all aspects of intellectual property litigation. Daniel’s practice spans a wide array of technologies, such as video coding and encryption, software, hardware, telecommunications, magnetic recording media, medical devices, battery cells, chemical products, and a variety of consumer facing products.
Daniel has represented clients in intellectual property matters in federal district courts across the country, the International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He has experience in all phases of litigation, including pre-trial investigations, discovery, claim construction, dispositive motion practice and trials. Daniel has achieved favorable results for his clients across venues. Since 2020, Best Lawyers in America has consistently recognized Daniel in its Ones to Watch list for Intellectual Property Law.
- “How to Conduct Depositions Remotely,” Law360, March 2020 (co-author)
- “Differences in Establishing a Printed Publication During Examination and IPR Proceedings,” IP Litigator, July/August 2020 (co-author)
- “Proving Printed Publication as Prior Art in IPR Proceedings,” Law360, January 2020 (co-author)
- “When Are Submissions to Standard Setting Organizations Prior Art?” IP Litigator, May/June 2019
- “Understanding the ‘Twice Rejected’ Rule for Initiating an Appeal with the Patent Trial and Appeals Board,” IP Litigator, March/April 2018
- “How to Conduct Depositions Remotely,” Law360, March 2020 (co-author)
- “Differences in Establishing a Printed Publication During Examination and IPR Proceedings,” IP Litigator, July/August 2020 (co-author)
- “Proving Printed Publication as Prior Art in IPR Proceedings,” Law360, January 2020 (co-author)
- “When Are Submissions to Standard Setting Organizations Prior Art?” IP Litigator, May/June 2019
- “Understanding the ‘Twice Rejected’ Rule for Initiating an Appeal with the Patent Trial and Appeals Board,” IP Litigator, March/April 2018
- Represented Google in the Southern District of New York against patent infringement claims relating to Google Maps. Google was able to obtain a dismissal based on the claims of the asserted patents being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
- Represented Amazon in the Western District of Texas against patent infringement claims relating to video on-demand and electric programming guides. In this case Amazon obtained summary judgment determination of invalidity for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
- Represented Amazon in the District of Delaware against patent infringement claims relating to dedicated network connections. Amazon obtained a favorable ruling at the summary judgement phase, leading the Plaintiff to stipulate to non-infringement.
- Represented a battery technology company in an inter partes review. The proceeding resulted in a favorable ruling that upheld the validity of all four challenged patents.
- Represented a manufacturer and seller of magnetic recording media in parallel proceedings before the International Trade Commission, federal district court, and Patent Trial and Appeals Board. The company was able to obtain a favorable settlement after several victories in different venues.
- Represented Google in the Southern District of New York against patent infringement claims relating to Google Maps. Google was able to obtain a dismissal based on the claims of the asserted patents being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
- Represented Amazon in the Western District of Texas against patent infringement claims relating to video on-demand and electric programming guides. In this case Amazon obtained summary judgment determination of invalidity for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
- Represented Amazon in the District of Delaware against patent infringement claims relating to dedicated network connections. Amazon obtained a favorable ruling at the summary judgement phase, leading the Plaintiff to stipulate to non-infringement.
- Represented a battery technology company in an inter partes review. The proceeding resulted in a favorable ruling that upheld the validity of all four challenged patents.
- Represented a manufacturer and seller of magnetic recording media in parallel proceedings before the International Trade Commission, federal district court, and Patent Trial and Appeals Board. The company was able to obtain a favorable settlement after several victories in different venues.