Daniel Gopenko helps technology companies protect their intellectual property and avoid infringement risks. Mr. Gopenko’s expertise lies in intellectual property litigation and counseling across a wide range of technologies. Mr. Gopenko has represented clients from complaint through trial in federal district courts throughout the country, including extensive experience before the “rocket docket” of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the United States International Trade Commission (ITC).
Mr. Gopenko has handled various aspects of both offensive and defensive complex litigation, including pre-suit investigations, fact and expert discovery, preparation and taking of depositions, motions practice, trials, and appeals. Mr. Gopenko also has experience in proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including patent prosecution, Inter Partes Review (IPR), and Covered Business Method Review (CBM). He serves his clients by learning their business and helping them to develop creative strategies and implement effective solutions.
Mr. Gopenko specializes in high technology litigation and his technical expertise covers a wide range of areas, which include computer hardware and software, website design, social networking, display devices, wireless communications, control systems, flash memory, micro-electro-mechanical systems, industrial manufacturing, Internet services, and consumer recreational products. He also devotes some of his professional time to pro bono matters, including working with the Children’s Law Center.
Mr. Gopenko served as a Judicial Intern to the Honorable Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge, at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2012), as well as a Judicial Intern to the Honorable Susan G. Braden at the United States Court of Federal Claims (2011). Prior to and during law school, Mr. Gopenko worked as a patent agent at a boutique firm in the Washington D.C. area and as a summer associate at Fish. Mr. Gopenko also worked as an Intern Radio Frequency Design Engineer at Digital Receiver Technology, Inc., which is a subsidiary of The Boeing Company (2008-2009).
Mr. Gopenko earned a JD with honors from The George Washington University Law School in 2012. During law school, he was the Student Editor-In-Chief of the American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal. He earned a B.S., cum laude, in Electrical Engineering from the University of Maryland in 2009. During his time at Maryland, Mr. Gopenko was very involved with the engineering community, including serving as the Engineering Student Council President (2008-2009) and Vice President (2007-2008). In recognition of his work as a campus leader, he was selected for membership in the prestigious Omicron Delta Kappa National Leadership Honor Society and his name is inscribed on the landmark fountain at the center of the Maryland campus.
J.D., George Washington University Law School 2012
B.S., University of Maryland 2009
Electrical Engineering, with minor in Project Management
Tau Beta Pi National Engineering Honor Society; Eta Kappa Nu Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Honor Society; Omicron Delta Kappa National Leadership Honor Society
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 2010
- Virginia 2012
- District of Columbia 2014
- Supreme Court of the United States
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
Memberships & Affiliations
Member, Federal Bar Association (Northern Virginia Chapter and Section on Intellectual Property Law); Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court; American Bar Association, American Intellectual Property Law Association; ITC Trial Lawyers Association, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Student Editor-In-Chief of the American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal (2011-2012); Editorial Staff Member (2010-2011).
George Washington University Law School Moot Court Board
ABA/BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.
George Washington University Law School Dean’s Fellow (2011-2012).
“9 Common Pitfalls With Post-Grant Proceedings,” Law360 (2014).
Reconsidering The De Novo Standard of Review in Patent Claim Construction, 40 AIPLA Q.J. 315 (2012).
Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof I & II (USITC 337-TA-944 & -945) – Representing Respondent Arista Networks in patent infringement cases. Cases pending.
Certain Devices Containing Non-Volatile Memory and Products Containing The Same (USITC 337-TA-922) – Represented Complainants Macronix International Co., Ltd. and Macronix America, Inc. in a patent infringement action relating to non-volatile memory technology. Resolved successfully via settlement.
Certain Non-Volatile Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same (USITC 337-TA-916) – Represented Respondents Macronix International Co., Ltd. and Macronix America, Inc., Macronix Asia Ltd. of Japan, Macronix (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. of Hong Kong, and Macronix’s customers in a patent infringement action relating to non-volatile memory technology. Resolved successfully via settlement.
Certain Soft-Edged Trampolines and Components Thereof (USITC 337-TA-908) – Represented complainant Springfree against Vuly in patent litigation concerning trampolines.
Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing the Same (USITC 337-TA-876) – Represented Respondent InvenSense, Inc. against STMicroelectronics in a five-patent litigation involving MEMS sensors and accelerometers. The case settled favorably for our client during trial.
Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same and Products Containing Same– 337-TA-855 – Represented Respondents Bose Corporation, DeWALT Industrial Tool Co., and Harman International in a four-patent case involving the manufacturing of sintered rare earth magnets. Resolved successfully via settlement.
Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices and Products Containing Same (337-TA-836) – Represented Respondent Research In Motion in an investigation defending against infringement claims as to several patents. The case settled favorably for our client after the close of expert discovery.
Certain Display Devices, Including Digital Televisions and Monitors II (Inv. No. 337-TA-765) – Defended Respondent LGE against patent infringement claims brought by Sony Electronics seeking exclusion of LGE’s digital television products.
Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-764) – Represented Complainant LGE against Sony entities seeking exclusion of Sony’s PlayStation3 and digital television products.
Representative District Court Cases
Ridenour v. Multi-Color Corporation and Sterling Infosystems Inc. (Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-41) – Representing defendant Sterling against a class action complaint.
Progress Profiles SpA v. Schluter Systems L.P. (Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-1535) (consolidated with Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-144) – Represented defendant Schluter Systems L.P. in patent litigation relating to heated floor support structures. The case settled favorably for our client.
Imre Batori and Progress Profiles SpA v. Schluter Systems L.P. v. Imre Batori, Progress Profiles SpA, and Progress Profiles America Inc. (Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-144) – Represented defendant/counterclaim plaintiff Schluter Systems L.P. in patent litigation relating to heated floor support structures. The case settled favorably for our client after the submission of expert reports.
In re: TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation (Eastern District of Virginia, MDL No. 1:14-md-2534) and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C., et. al. (Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-135) – Represented defendant Apple Inc. in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) patent case relating to photo sharing applications. After winning our motion to dismiss on § 101 and § 112(f) grounds at the district court, and filing briefs related to TLI’s Federal Circuit appeal, the case was settled favorably for our client. The Federal Circuit later upheld the district court’s dismissal of TLI’s suit.
MicroStrategy Incorporated v. Apttus Corporation (Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-21) – Represented plaintiff MicroStrategy in a three-patent case relating to web-business intelligence platforms.
Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc. and AddThis, Inc. (Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-158) – Represented plaintiff Rembrandt Social Media in patent litigation relating to website design.
Ericsson Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. (Eastern District of Texas, 6:12-cv-894) – Represented Samsung Electronics in a highly contested patent and licensing dispute in the Eastern District of Texas concerning a wide array of technologies covering software and hardware for mobile devices (including phones and tablets), televisions, and media players. Dismissed.
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Sony Corporation (Southern District of California / Central District of California) – Represented LG Electronics in a patent case against Sony relating to Blu-ray disc players and digital television products.