Overview
Daniel Kiang represents clients in patent and trademark litigation matters, including before district courts, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, and the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Mr. Kiang has extensive experience representing both petitioners and patent owners in AIA post-grant proceedings, such as inter partes reviews, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Mr. Kiang has litigated patents in complex technology areas including physiological monitoring devices, 5G/4G cellular systems, Universal Serial Bus connectors and standards, autonomous robot navigation and inventory management systems, among others. Mr. Kiang also represents clients in trademark and trade dress disputes, including in opposition and cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and in district court litigations.
Education
- University of California - Los Angeles - School of Law (UCLA) (J.D., 2015)
- University of California - Berkeley (B.A. Physics, 2012)
- University of California - Berkeley (B.A. Applied Mathematics, 2012)
Affiliations
Member, Orange County Asian American Bar Association
Representative Experience
In re Certain Light-Based Physiological Measurement Devices and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1276 (U.S. International Trade Commission)
Successfully represented Masimo in a patent infringement investigation against Apple at the ITC that resulted in an import ban of certain Apple Watches.
VIZIO, Inc. v. Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC, IPR2024-00073 (Patent Trial & Appeal Board)
Successfully obtained a final written decision on behalf of Petitioner invalidating all claims of a patent directed to LED drivers, and successfully defended the final written decision on Delegated Director Review.
Wilson Electronics, LLC v. CellPhone-Mate, Inc. d/b/a SureCall, IPR2018-1771, -1772, 1774, -1776, -1778, 01779 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)
Successfully represented SureCall’s 5-band cellular signal booster patent against competitor challenge. Obtained non-institution of six petitions confirming patentability of all claims.
Toshiba America Information Systems v. Walletex Microelectronics Ltd., IPR2018-01538 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)
Successfully obtained a final written decision on behalf of Petitioner Toshiba invalidating all claims of a patent directed to double-sided USBs, including successfully opposing patent owner’s motion to amend claims based on lack of enablement. Also successfully defended the final written decision on appeal to the Federal Circuit, resulting in a Rule 36 summary affirmance.
Kinetic Lighting, Inc. v. Bauder, Opp. No. 91245640 (Trademark Trial and Appeals Board)
Successfully defended Christopher Bauder’s trademark from competitor opposition, resulting in a finding that the competitor’s alleged trademark had not acquired distinctiveness.
Takata Corporation v. American Vehicular Sciences, LLC, IPR2016-1794 (Patent Trial and Appeals Board)
Successfully represented IPR petitioner that resulted in a final written decision finding all 44 claims of the challenged side-curtain airbag patent unpatentable on 13 grounds.
Sotera Wireless v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01082 (Patent Trial and Appeals Board)
Successfully defended Masimo’s physiological alarm simulation patent against competitor challenge. Obtained non-institution of IPR petition confirming patentability of all claims.
Recognition
Awards & Honors
- Recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for Patent Litigation (2024-2026)
- Named to Benchmark Litigation “40 & Under” List (2026)
News & Insights
Articles
Co-author, “Tips for Patent Prosecutors from Litigators: Enhancing Litigation Outcomes,” IP Watchdog (August 2024).
Jessie Yang, Daniel Kiang, Paul Stewart, “Fed. Circ. In April: The Trademark Tacking Doctrine’s Reach“, Law360 (April 2023) (PDF)
WORLDS INC. V. BUNGIE, INC.
M-I DRILLING FLUIDS UK LTD. V. DYNAMIC AIR LTDA
FINJAN, INC. V. BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.
Patent Infringement Judgment Against ION Geophysical for its Sales of Seismic Survey Devices Reduced to $26 Million from Original $124 Million Damages Award
Jury Awards $10.4 Million in Damages to Philips for ZOLL’s Infringement of Defibrillator Patents
“Federal Circuit Report | IP Litigator Issue May/June 2018, Volume 24 Number 3,” Co-Author, IP Litigator
Litigation Blog
- PTAB May Revisit Issues Left Unresolved by Prior Appeal
- Corresponding Structure for a Means-Plus-Function Limitation Need Only Perform the Claimed Function, Not Other Unclaimed Functions
- Conflict of Interest Does Not Automatically Extinguish Attorney-Client Privilege
- Software Claims Failed Alice Step One Where Purported Improvements Were Not Claimed
- Result-Oriented Claims and Section 101: Claiming the How
- Cooperation With a Restriction Requirement May Result in Disavowal of Claim Scope
- Bait, Switch, and Retrial: Federal Circuit Rebukes Trial Arguments That Reneged on Prior Representations
- An Examiner’s Allowance Does Not Create an “Especially Weighty” Presumption of Written-Description Support
- Cancellation of a Closely Related Claim During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel
- The Federal Circuit Grounds US SPACE FORCE Trademark Application
- A Request for Sanctions Before the ITC Is Not Appealable to the Federal Circuit
- A Patent Does Not Guarantee the Patent Owner Will Be First to Market
- No Takebacks: The High Bar for Departing From Patent Lexicography
- Hard to Stomach: Things You Say to Prosecute a Patent Can and Will Be Used Against You
- Argument Forfeited When Raised for the First Time Fourteen Months After an Appeal
- An Obvious Solution to an Unknown Problem?
- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Has Jurisdiction Over IPRs Challenging Expired Patents
- Read the Fine Print: Federal Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Patent Infringement Claims Based on an Express License, Where Some Transactions Could Fall Within the Scope of the Claims Yet Remain Unlicensed
- Are Literal Infringement and the Doctrine of Equivalents the Same Issue?
- Estoppel Does Not Apply to Previously Issued Claims
- Obviousness Analysis Does Not Consider Unclaimed Limitations
- Consider the Relevant Technology Carefully Before Claiming Ranges in Patent Applications
- Federal Circuit Instructs PTAB How to Apply Public Accessibility Standard
- IPR Decision Based on a Barely Mentioned Typo Violated the APA Notice Requirement
- “Magic Words” Unnecessary in Identifying Field of Endeavor for Analogous Art
- How Far Can the Music Go: The Limited Reach of the Trademark Tacking Doctrine
- Patent Affirmed as Unenforceable Due to Prosecution Laches
