fbpx

Daniel C. Miller

366 Madison Ave
5th Floor
New York, NY 10017

Daniel C. Miller is a Partner in our New York office, and he focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, commercial litigation and a wide variety of business transaction matters.

For nearly two decades, Daniel has represented public and private companies in patent, trade secret, and commercial technology-related disputes. He also counsels clients in obtaining, protecting, licensing, monetizing, defending against, and enforcing intellectual property.

Daniel often handles both offensive and defensive litigation matters in the United States District Courts, including in the Eastern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, Northern District of California, District of Delaware, District of Nevada, District of Massachusetts, and Eastern District of Virginia. He has often appeared before the United States Courts of Appeal for the Federal Circuit and Fourth Circuit, and before the United States International Trade Commission.

He has also managed post-grant proceedings before the United States Patent Office, including matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. His practice has included representing large technology companies, such as Google, Nokia, and Alcatel-Lucent, mid-sized companies, and solo inventors. He also has global experience and has represented and counseled foreign companies in intellectual property matters, and has managed multi-jurisdictional disputes.

Earlier in his career, Daniel spent eight years as in-house legal counsel, including seven years at Google and one year at MicroStrategy. While at Google, Daniel managed numerous patent litigation matters, including two defensive cases where Google was awarded sanctions from the plaintiff. He also managed patent prosecution matters, engaged in patent licensing and acquisition matters, oversaw extensive patent portfolio analysis and review, provided product counseling, and revised and negotiated in-bound and out-bound contracts. He was awarded the GC Award for his contributions to the Oracle v. Google case. While working for a semiconductor manufacturer in Munich, Germany, Daniel provided general intellectual property counseling as well as assisting in patent licensing negotiations.

Daniel brings strong technical knowledge and experience to his legal work. He earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics from Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana, and he completed a graduate degree in computer science from Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania. He spent several years writing client/server software for companies including MCI and Texas Guaranteed Student Loan.

Daniel received his Juris Doctorate from the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. Over his legal career, he has gained technical knowledge of wireless telephony, Internet protocol and architecture technologies, XaaS technologies, software and hardware storage systems, user interface technologies, operating systems, telecommunications, semiconductors, and circuit design.

Daniel is admitted to practice in the state court of New York and the District of Columbia, United States District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Wisconsin, and Western District of Texas, and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

EXPERIENCE

Daniel has nearly two decades of experience as an intellectual property litigator for Fortune 500 companies as well as startups, mid-sized firms and solo inventors. He represents public and private companies in patent, trade secret, and commercial technology-related disputes, as well as a wide range of actions such as obtaining, protecting, licensing, monetizing, defending against, and enforcing intellectual property. His experience as in-house counsel at Google and a semiconductor manufacturer give him unique insights on the business objectives and pain points of companies that are building out and defending an intellectual property portfolio.

  • Argued for and secured a favorable claim construction ruling for MV3 Partners in case against Roku in the Western District of Texas.
  • Argued for and secured a favorable claim construction ruling for Fintiv in case against Apple in the Western District of Texas.
  • When in-house at Google, secured summary judgment of non-infringement and was further awarded monetary sanctions in a patent infringement suit brought in the Southern District of Texas by SuperSpeed Software, alleging that “Google Docs” and “Google Drive” infringed two data access patents.
  • When in-house at Google, secured a complete dismissal in a six-patent infringement case brought by Data Engine Technologies in the District of Delaware. Data Engine alleged that Google Sheets infringed patents which purportedly covered the Quattro Pro for Windows® spreadsheet program sold by Borland Software Corporation in the 1990s.  The court found that the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and thus invalid, and granted Google’s motion to dismiss.
  • When in-house at Google, secured a motion to transfer venue, from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, in a patent infringement case alleging that Google Drive infringed Hall Data’s database synchronization patent.

ADMITTED

  • New York
  • District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

EDUCATION

  • J.D., The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
  • M.S., Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
  • B.A., Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana

Recognitions

  • GC Award for his contributions to the Oracle v. Google case
Written by: HBS Intellectual Property Team Ferrari just lost a landmark trademark battle with an Italian rival auto maker over its 250 GTO, one of its
ATLANTA – May 21, 2020 – Hall Booth Smith, P.C. is excited to announce that highly experienced intellectual property attorneys Daniel C. Miller and Rodney
Written by: Karl Braun, Esq., Justin Kerenyi, Esq., Daniel Miller, Esq., and Rodney Miller, Esq. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is giving small businesses and micro entities priority
Written by: Karl Braun, Esq., Justin Kerenyi, Esq., Daniel Miller, Esq., and Rodney Miller, Esq. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with apparel maker Lucky Brand on
Practice Specific Experience
Related Industries

Daniel C. Miller is a Partner in our New York office, and he focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, commercial litigation and a wide variety of business transaction matters.

For nearly two decades, Daniel has represented public and private companies in patent, trade secret, and commercial technology-related disputes. He also counsels clients in obtaining, protecting, licensing, monetizing, defending against, and enforcing intellectual property.

Daniel often handles both offensive and defensive litigation matters in the United States District Courts, including in the Eastern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, Northern District of California, District of Delaware, District of Nevada, District of Massachusetts, and Eastern District of Virginia. He has often appeared before the United States Courts of Appeal for the Federal Circuit and Fourth Circuit, and before the United States International Trade Commission.

He has also managed post-grant proceedings before the United States Patent Office, including matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. His practice has included representing large technology companies, such as Google, Nokia, and Alcatel-Lucent, mid-sized companies, and solo inventors. He also has global experience and has represented and counseled foreign companies in intellectual property matters, and has managed multi-jurisdictional disputes.

Earlier in his career, Daniel spent eight years as in-house legal counsel, including seven years at Google and one year at MicroStrategy. While at Google, Daniel managed numerous patent litigation matters, including two defensive cases where Google was awarded sanctions from the plaintiff. He also managed patent prosecution matters, engaged in patent licensing and acquisition matters, oversaw extensive patent portfolio analysis and review, provided product counseling, and revised and negotiated in-bound and out-bound contracts. He was awarded the GC Award for his contributions to the Oracle v. Google case. While working for a semiconductor manufacturer in Munich, Germany, Daniel provided general intellectual property counseling as well as assisting in patent licensing negotiations.

Daniel brings strong technical knowledge and experience to his legal work. He earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics from Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana, and he completed a graduate degree in computer science from Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania. He spent several years writing client/server software for companies including MCI and Texas Guaranteed Student Loan.

Daniel received his Juris Doctorate from the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. Over his legal career, he has gained technical knowledge of wireless telephony, Internet protocol and architecture technologies, XaaS technologies, software and hardware storage systems, user interface technologies, operating systems, telecommunications, semiconductors, and circuit design.

Daniel is admitted to practice in the state court of New York and the District of Columbia, United States District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Wisconsin, and Western District of Texas, and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

EXPERIENCE

Daniel has nearly two decades of experience as an intellectual property litigator for Fortune 500 companies as well as startups, mid-sized firms and solo inventors. He represents public and private companies in patent, trade secret, and commercial technology-related disputes, as well as a wide range of actions such as obtaining, protecting, licensing, monetizing, defending against, and enforcing intellectual property. His experience as in-house counsel at Google and a semiconductor manufacturer give him unique insights on the business objectives and pain points of companies that are building out and defending an intellectual property portfolio.

  • Argued for and secured a favorable claim construction ruling for MV3 Partners in case against Roku in the Western District of Texas.
  • Argued for and secured a favorable claim construction ruling for Fintiv in case against Apple in the Western District of Texas.
  • When in-house at Google, secured summary judgment of non-infringement and was further awarded monetary sanctions in a patent infringement suit brought in the Southern District of Texas by SuperSpeed Software, alleging that “Google Docs” and “Google Drive” infringed two data access patents.
  • When in-house at Google, secured a complete dismissal in a six-patent infringement case brought by Data Engine Technologies in the District of Delaware. Data Engine alleged that Google Sheets infringed patents which purportedly covered the Quattro Pro for Windows® spreadsheet program sold by Borland Software Corporation in the 1990s.  The court found that the asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and thus invalid, and granted Google’s motion to dismiss.
  • When in-house at Google, secured a motion to transfer venue, from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, in a patent infringement case alleging that Google Drive infringed Hall Data’s database synchronization patent.

ADMITTED

  • New York
  • District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

EDUCATION

  • J.D., The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
  • M.S., Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
  • B.A., Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana

Recognitions

  • GC Award for his contributions to the Oracle v. Google case
Written by: HBS Intellectual Property Team Ferrari just lost a landmark trademark battle with an Italian rival auto maker over its 250 GTO, one of its
ATLANTA – May 21, 2020 – Hall Booth Smith, P.C. is excited to announce that highly experienced intellectual property attorneys Daniel C. Miller and Rodney
Written by: Karl Braun, Esq., Justin Kerenyi, Esq., Daniel Miller, Esq., and Rodney Miller, Esq. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is giving small businesses and micro entities priority
Written by: Karl Braun, Esq., Justin Kerenyi, Esq., Daniel Miller, Esq., and Rodney Miller, Esq. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with apparel maker Lucky Brand on
Practice Specific Experience
Related Industries