Daniel L. Reisner | People | Arnold & Porter

Daniel Reisner focuses his practice on intellectual property, with emphasis on telecommunications and networking, analog, digital and image processing, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

Daniel has represented numerous large and small companies through trial involving companies' most important products, including Charter Communications, Amazon, Time Warner Cable, Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, Novartis and Medicalgorithmics. His experience includes representing plaintiffs and defendants in both jury and bench trials, ANDA litigation and arbitration proceedings as well as IP due diligence and transactional matters.

Focus Areas

Experience

Representing TC Technologies in successfully defeating an attempt to invalidate its patent covering LTE cellular technology in a reexamination proceeding. 90/014,708 (2022).
Representing Sanofi and Regeneron defending against an action brought by Amgen alleging its patents cover cholesterol lowering anti-PCSK9 antibodies, including defendants’ Praluent® drug. After a jury trial resulting in a split verdict, the district court entered a judgment in favor of defendants that invalidated all of Amgen’s asserted patent claims which was affirmed on appeal. Amgen v. Sanofi/Regeneron, D.Del. (2017–present); Fed. Cir. (2021). The case was designated by LMG Life Sciences an “Impact Case of the Year.”
Representing Charter Communications defending against an action brought by Sprint Communications alleging infringement of 15 patents that allegedly cover VoIP technology. Sprint v. Charter, D. Del. (2017–present).
Representing TC Technologies asserting a patent covering LTE cellular technology against Sprint Communications. TC Technologies v. Sprint, D. Del. (2018–present).
Representing Charter Communications defending against an action brought by Quantum Stream alleging infringement of three patents that allegedly covered dynamic ad insertion technology. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss and invalided all asserted claims under section 101. Plaintiff did not take an appeal. Quantum Stream v. Charter, S.D.N.Y. (2018).

Representing Medicalgorithmics in a licensing dispute involving a remote cardiac monitoring system (PocketECG) which used mobile technology to relay live cardiac data collected from patients. After a trial on the merits, the Chancery Court issued a ruling in favor of Medicalgorithmics and awarded it compensatory damages, attorneys fees and costs. Medicalgorithmics v. AMI Monitoring, (Del. Ch. Aug. 18, 2016).
Representing Amazon defending against an action brought by Hand Held Products asserting that its patent covered Amazon's bar code recognition-enabled on-line shopping apps infringed its patent. The district court accepted Amazon's claim construction and subsequently granted summary judgment of non-infringement which was affirmed on appeal. Hand Held Products v. Amazon.com, D. Del. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Representing Time Warner Cable defending against an action brought by Broadband iTV asserting that its patents covered video uploading technologies used by the defendant. The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity under section 101 which was affirmed on appeal. Broadband iTV v. Time Warner Cable, D. Hawaii (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Representing Time Warner Cable defending against an action brought by Rembrandt asserting eight patents that allegedly covered various modulation schemes, media access protocols, downloading algorithms and digital processing techniques. Successful claim constructions resulted in a covenant not to sue on seven patents and summary judgment of non-infringement on the 8th patent which was affirmed on appeal. In re Rembrandt, D. Del. (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Representing Pfizer in an ANDA infringement action against Teva because it sought approval for a generic version of Pfizer's multibillion-dollar drug Celebrex®, used for the treatment of arthritis. After a bench trial, the district court upheld validity of the three asserted patents, rejected the inequitable conduct defenses and entered an injunction. The Federal Circuit affirmed the validity of two of the three patents on appeal. Pfizer v. Teva, D.N.J. (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Representing Pfizer in a patent infringement suit brought by the University of Rochester alleging Celebrex® infringed its method of use claims. The district court granted defendant's summary judgment motion invalidating the asserted patent for lack of written description which was upheld on appeal. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle, N.D.N.Y. (Fed. Cir. 2004).