Overview

Daniel Tishman represents both plaintiffs and defendants in complex patent litigation in federal District Courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Representing major global clients in District Court and before the ITC, Dan has asserted and defended infringement claims in multi-patent cases involving wide-ranging technologies. He has participated in nearly a dozen trials, achieving favorable verdicts and settlements involving consumer electronics, batteries, hybrid electric vehicles, and more.

Dan’s broad patent litigation experience includes all phases of cases, from pre-suit investigations to fact and expert discovery, claim construction, dispositive motions, trials, and appeals. In addition to handling patent cases in District Court and before the ITC, Dan is experienced in representing petitioners and patent owners in post-grant proceedings and before the U.S. Customs & Border Patrol in proceedings pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 177. Dan also provides strategic counsel to clients in the battery, consumer electronics, chemical, semiconductor, and automotive industries.

From 2011-2013, Dan served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Yvette Kane of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Before law school, Dan worked as an IBM technology specialist intern.

Experience

ITC

Certain Semiconductor Devices, Mobile Devices Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1336 (ITC) – Represented respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. in multi-patent infringement case involving semiconductor manufacturing technology.  Favorable settlement.

Represented a Fortune 100 consumer electronics company in a multi-patent infringement case involving switchable connectivity technology. Favorable settlement.

Certain Lithium Ion Battery Cells, Battery Modules, Battery Packs, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. 337-TA-1181 (ITC) – Represented complainants LG Chem and Toray Industries in patent infringement case. Favorable settlement.

Certain Pouch-Type Battery Cells, Battery Modules, Battery Packs, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. 337-TA-1179 (ITC) – Represented LG Chem respondents in patent infringement case. Favorable settlement.

Certain Subsea Telecommunication Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. 337-TA-1098  (ITC) – Represented respondent NEC against complainant Xtera in multi-patent case involving subsea telecommunication systems. Following trial, obtained determination of no violation.

Certain Batteries and Electrochemical Devices Containing Composite Separators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1087 (ITC) – Represented complainants LG Chem and Toray against respondent ATL in multi-patent case involving lithium ion battery technology. Favorable settlement following trial.

Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1042 (ITC) – Represented complainants Paice and Abell against Ford in multi-patent case involving hybrid-electric vehicles. Favorable settlement following trial.

Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-998 (ITC) – Represented complainants Paice and Abell against Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche in multi-patent case involving hybrid-electric vehicles. Favorable settlement.

Certain Automated Teller Machines, ATM Modules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-972 (ITC) – Represented respondent Nautilus Hyosung against Diebold in multi-patent infringement case involving a wide array of technology associated with ATMs. Obtained finding of non-infringement as to certain products.

Certain Television Sets, Televisions Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-910 (ITC) – Represented respondent LG in ITC investigation against complainant CrestaTech in multi-patent infringement case involving television tuner technology. Following trial, obtained determination of no violation.

Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-876 (ITC) – Represented respondent InvenSense against complainant STMicroelectronics in multi-patent infringement case involving MEMS technology. Favorable settlement during trial.

U.S. District Court 

Aire Technology Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (W.D. Tex. 2021) (J. Albright) – Representing defendants in multi-patent infringement case involving contactless payment technology. Favorable settlement.

Theta IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (W.D. Tex. 2020) (J. Albright) – Representing defendants in multi-patent infringement case involving transceiver technology. Favorable settlement on the first day of trial.

Acorn Semi, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2019) (J. Gilstrap) – Representing defendants in multi-patent infringement case involving semiconductor fabrication technology. Favorable settlement following trial.

LG Chem, Ltd. and Toray Industries, Inc. v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd. and SK Battery America, Inc.  (D. Del. 2019) (J. Connolly)—Represented plaintiffs in multi-patent infringement case involving lithium-ion battery technology. Favorable settlement.

SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. LG Chem Ltd., LG Chem Michigan, Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc. (D. Del. 2019) (J. Connolly) – Represented defendants in patent infringement case involving battery technology. Favorable settlement.

SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. LG Chem Ltd. and LG Chem Michigan, Inc. (D. Del. 2019) (J. Connolly) – Represented LG Chem in patent infringement case involving battery technology. Favorable settlement.

SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. LG Chem Ltd., LG Chem Michigan, Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc. (D. Del. 2019) (J. Connolly ) – Represented LG Chem in patent infringement case involving battery technology. Favorable settlement.

Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, Inc. (D. Md. 2017) (J. Albright) – Represented plaintiff in gender discrimination lawsuit (pro bono). Jury trial verdict of $725,000 in compensatory and punitive damages (see link).

LG Chem, Ltd. and Toray Industries, Inc. v. Amperex Technology Ltd. (E.D. Mich. 2017) (J. Lawson) – Represented plaintiffs in multi-patent infringement case involving lithium-ion battery technology. Favorable settlement.

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C. et al. (D. Col. 2017) – Represented defendants Sling and DISH in patent litigation regarding compression technology. Summary judgment of invalidity granted in favor of clients.

Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex.) – Represented defendant Samsung Electronics in multi-patent case involving haptics technology. Favorable settlement.

Paice LLC  v. Hyundai Motor Co., et al. (D. Md.) – Represented Paice and Abell in multi-patent infringement case involving hybrid-electric vehicles. Favorable settlement following trial, after obtaining $28.9 million verdict and finding of willfulness for client Paice and Abell.

SEVEN Networks v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex.) – Represented defendant Samsung Electronics in multi-patent infringement case involving consumer electronics technologies related to power usage algorithms. Favorable settlement.

IMS Health Inc. v. Symphony Health Solutions, Corp. et al. (D. Del.) – Represented IMS Health in multi-patent infringement case involving healthcare analytics and informatics. Favorable settlement.

Ericsson v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex.) – Represented defendant Samsung Electronics in multi-patent infringement case involving a wide array of consumer electronics technologies. Favorable settlement.

Professional associations

  • Washington Lawyers' Committee for the Civil Rights, Board of Directors (2022-Present)
  • ITC TLA, Executive Committee
  • Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court, Member

Pro bono activities 

Dan is dedicated to pro bono causes, particularly those concerning workplace discrimination and immigration. He serves as the pro bono coordinating attorney for the firm's Washington, D.C., office.  

Case work 

  • Together with the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Dan helped secure the reversal of a District Court decision that had dismissed his client's workplace discrimination case. The result revived claims alleging hostile work environment and retaliatory termination.  

Organizations 

  • Washington Lawyers’ Committee, Board of Directors