Daniel Hughes represents clients in all types of intellectual property disputes, with a focus on patent litigation. He is also a member of the firm’s antitrust practice group and has experience with both antitrust litigation and with presenting antitrust issues to regulatory bodies, both in the U.S. and abroad.
Daniel also has a wide range of experience in contentious Patent Office proceedings, including inter partes review, ex parte reexamination, supplemental examination and inter partes reexamination.
Daniel regularly counsels clients in pre-litigation matters, including analyzing patent infringement and validity. He also has experience on advising clients on directed patent prosecution and the management of large patent portfolios.
Daniel has worked as a criminal trial prosecutor in the San Diego City Attorney Office through its Trial Attorney Partnership program. In that role, Daniel tried two jury trials to verdict and conducted numerous preliminary hearings on criminal matters.
Daniel received his law degree from the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, graduating cum laude. While in law school, he served as an Associate Editor on the Arizona State Law Journal and as Webmaster for the Executive Moot Court Board. Upon graduation, Daniel received the Janet S. Muller Oral Advocacy Award, recognizing him as the top oral advocate from his graduating class. Prior to his legal education, he received a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Engineering from the University of Arizona.
Daniel joined the firm in 2014 and became a partner in 2021.
Order of Barristers
Janet S. Muller Oral Advocacy Award for Excellence in Oral Advocacy and Moot Court Competitions
Co-Author, "Open-Source License Enforcement; Risk to Companies," Daily Journal (December 2022)
Author, Litigation Blog
Restrictive Definitions Incorporated by Reference Do Not Necessarily Control for Later Patents in the Same Family
Judicial Review: The PTAB Must Offer Reasonably Discernible Logic
Justice Must Satisfy the Appearance of Justice— A Judge’s Family’s Financial Interest of 100 Shares of a Party’s Stock Is a Serious Issue
It Is Not Controversial: Factual and Legal Specificity Needed in Standing Dismissals
- Conclusory Statements About Prior Art Combinations Not Enough To Defeat Preliminary Injunction
- Ordered To Agree: Binding Settlement Agreement Provision Found Despite Absence of Singular, Executed Agreement
- Not So Obvious After All: PTAB Lacked Evidence to Eradicate University’s Disinfection Method
- Defeating the Duo: Jumping to Alice Step Two
- No Assembly, No Infringement – Federal Circuit Declines to Expand “Final Assembler” Theory of Direct Infringement
- Importance of the Article of Manufacture for Determining Design Claim Scope
- No Special Standards for Nexus of Objective Indicia Apply to Design Patents
- Federal Circuit Holds That Art Teaches Away From Its Own Disclosure
- Does the Successor-in-Interest’s Shoe Fit?
- Promises Made, Promises Not Kept: Even an Implied License Requires Compliance With Its Terms
- No Kitchen Confusion: When Comparing Marks, the Trademark Board Can Give Less Weight to Shared Terms if the Terms Are Suggestive or Descriptive
Co-Author, "IP Antitrust News: Xitronix v. KLA-Tencor: The Federal Circuit Finally Ends A Game Of Jurisdictional Hot Potato" IP Antitrust News (October 2019)
Co-Author, "The Defend Trade Secrets Act - A Year In Review," Law360 (May 2017)