Overview
Daniel Hughes represents clients in all types of intellectual property disputes, with a particular focus on software patent litigation. Daniel’s persuasive, detail-focused advocacy has repeatedly achieved favorable results for his clients. Daniel has successfully resolved over a dozen inter partes review proceedings and numerous district court cases for some of the largest software companies in the world.
On one of his most successful cases, Daniel was part of the team representing Masimo in a patent infringement and trade secret case against Apple. The patent lawsuit was tried to a jury in November 2025, and the jury awarded Masimo $634 million in damages for patent infringement related to Apple Watch technology. Daniel has also represented Amazon in an eight patent case involving computer networking technology in both district court and related IPRs. After IPR was instituted on all eight patents, Amazon received a covenant not to sue on all asserted patents.
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 is active in the legal community and serves on the Board of Governors for the San Diego Chapter of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. He is also a member of the San Diego IP Inn of Court. San Diego Business Journal recently recognized Daniel as one of its Leaders of Influence in Law.
Education
- Arizona State University (J.D., 2014), cum laude
- University of Arizona (B.S. Computer Engineering, 2011)
Representative Experience
Masimo Corp. v. Philips Electronics North America Corp. and Philips Medizin Systeme Boblingen GmbH. (D. Del. 2014).
Represented Masimo in the second phase of patent litigation and antitrust litigation involving pulse oximetry resulting in a grant of summary judgment of infringement. In an earlier phase of the case relating to patent infringement, Masimo won a jury verdict of more than $466 million. The second patent infringement and antitrust phase of the case was resolved by a settlement in which Philips agreed to pay Masimo $300 million.
Telecommunications Systems, Inc. v. Cassidian Communications, Inc. (E. D. Tex. 2014).
Represented Cassidian in a case regarding voice over internet protocol and emergency services patents. Case was settled favorably prior to claim construction.
Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/014,141
Represented client in ex parte reexamination involving geo-location notifications for mail delivery. All original claims were found unpatentable by the Patent Office.
Supplemental Examination No. 96/000,240 for Horiba, LTD
Represented Horiba in supplemental examination involving apparatus to measure exhausts gases from car engines. After a potential infringer asserted that patent was invalid over prior art, submitted prior art to Patent Office and successfully obtained claims that overcame prior art and preserved claim scope.
Hammond Development International Inc., v. Amazon, Inc., 1:20-CV-00342-ADA
Represented Amazon in patent litigation involving eight asserted patents. Also represented Amazon in the companion inter partes review proceedings. Successfully obtained a covenant not to sue on all asserted patents after IPR proceedings were substantially complete.
Seeminex.com Inc. v. Wrethink Inc., 37-2019-00019157-CU-BC-CTL
Represented Seeminex in a quasi-contract and intellectual property dispute in California state court. Achieved a favorable settlement on behalf of Seeminex.
Recognition
Awards & Honors
- Recognized as “Leaders of Influence in Law” by the San Diego Business Journal
- Recognized in the “Best Lawyers 2026 Guide: Ones to Watch” for Patent Litigation in Best Lawyers in America (2025)
- Order of Barristers
- Janet S. Muller Oral Advocacy Award for Excellence in Oral Advocacy and Moot Court Competitions
News & Insights
Articles
Co-Author, “How Generative AI is Impacting Trade Secret Protection,” Daily Journal (October 2024)
Co-Author, “Protecting Company Secrets After the FTC’s Noncompete Rule,” The Recorder (July 2024).
Co-Author, “Open-Source License Enforcement; Risk to Companies,” Daily Journal (December 2022)
Author, Litigation Blog
- A Published Patent Application Is IPR Prior Art as of Its Filing Date
- Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose under § 101
- A Certification Mark May Be Famous for Any Reason and May Connote More Than the Product’s Place of Origin
- Free Samples and Fillers: No Teaching Away or Commercial Success
- If a Case Was Baseless, It Would Have Ended Sooner
- Low-Bar for Corroboration
- Disclaimers May Not Be Used to Shapeshift Claims
- 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
- No “Automatic” Review Under O2 Micro
- 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)
