Daniel (Dan) T. Shvodian
- Palo Alto
Notice
Before proceeding, please note: If you are not a current client of Perkins Coie, please do not include any information in this e-mail that you or someone else considers to be of a confidential or secret nature. Perkins Coie has no duty to keep confidential any of the information you provide. Neither the transmission nor receipt of your information is considered a request for legal advice, securing or retaining a lawyer. An attorney-client relationship with Perkins Coie or any lawyer at Perkins Coie is not established until and unless Perkins Coie agrees to such a relationship as memorialized in a separate writing.
Dan leverages his engineering background to effectively manage IP and technical matters.
Dan Shvodian represents clients in state and federal courts, as well as before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, handling cases involving patent and trademark infringement, copyright violations, unfair competition, breach of contract, and trade secret misappropriation. He utilizes his engineering background to provide guidance on electrical and computer technologies, as well as biotechnical and biomedical innovations.
Dan also advises clients on matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs), and has represented clients in proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission under Section 337.
Dan maintains an active pro bono practice, which includes advocating for a client through the Innocence Project and securing his release after more than two decades in prison. Before his legal career, Dan spent seven years as an electrical engineer at the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Maryland.
Areas of focus
Education & Credentials
Education
- University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 1996
- University of Maryland, M.S., Electrical Engineering, 1990
- Bucknell University, B.S., Electrical Engineering, magna cum laude, 1987
Bar and Court Admissions
-
California
-
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Related Employment
- Howrey, Palo Alto, CA, Partner
- Arnold White & Durkee, Associate
Professional Recognition
Listed in Super Lawyers Magazine as a "Northern California Super Lawyer," 2012-2025
Impact
Professional Leadership
- American Bar Association, Member
- American Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
- San Francisco Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
- Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
Professional Experience
Representative Matters
Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc.
Successfully defended Emtrak, Jenoptik AG and Jenoptik Infab, Inc. against charges of patent infringement. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement of all asserted patent claims, and the judgment was partially affirmed on appeal. Following remand, obtained judgment as a matter of law that all remaining patent claims are invalid due to obviousness.
Patent Litigation Matter for High-Tech Silicon Valley Based Client
In defending a client against infringement claims, personally uncovered evidence that the inventor fabricated documents submitted to the patent office to establish priority over a cited reference. Then worked with a forensic computer specialist to uncover evidence of additional documents that had been fabricated and backdated. The case then settled on highly favorable terms.
Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Cropscience, N.V.
Brought a successful declaratory judgment action in regard to a patent relating to bioengineered crops. The jury found the patent claims invalid and not infringed. Following a bench trial, the court held the patents-in-suit unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. DEKALB Genetics Corp.
Successfully defended DEKALB against an allegation of patent infringement. All asserted claims were held invalid or not infringed. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Neothermia Corp. v. Rubicor Med., Inc.
Represented Rubicor against claims of patent infringement and trade secret theft regarding a medical device for breast cancer diagnosis. The plaintiff dismissed all claims.
PLC Med. Sys., Inc. v. Eclipse Surgical Techs., Inc.
Defended Eclipse Surgical against charges of copyright violation. After a successful defense against preliminary injunction motion, the matter was settled.
In the Matter of Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, and Products Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephone Handsets
Represented third-party intervenor Kyocera Wireless Corp. in the remedy phase of an ITC investigation regarding wireless communication technology.
Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs
Represented Intel in multiple patent infringement actions alleging infringement of semiconductor chipset patents. The matter was settled.
Gripple Ltd. v. Quiedan Co.
Represented Gripple in an action alleging infringement of a patent on wine trellising devices, and trade dress infringement. The matter was settled shortly after Gripple obtained a preliminary injunction.
Guardian Industries Corp. v. Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Represented Chunghwa Picture Tubes and several of its customers in a patent infringement action brought by Guardian based upon films in the construction of LCD displays to increase the viewing angle. Litigation was settled.
Pro Bono
Dan has represented pro bono clients in unlawful detainer actions, in predatory lending litigation and on an appeal in opposition to a redevelopment plan.