Daniel Kesack is an original associate of Radulescu LLP, an elite patent litigation boutique firm based in New York City.  Daniel’s practice focuses on complex technology-based patent litigation before federal courts. His practice to date has focused on light emitting diodes, semiconductor products in telecommunications, oil and gas drilling operations, and internet-of-things (IOT) semiconductor security. After eight years of nuclear engineering and health physics training at the undergraduate and graduate level and an internship at Oak Ridge National Lab, he is well equipped to handle a variety of technical issues, including mechanics, electronics, physics, radiation and molecular biology, chemistry, and lab analytics. Mr. Kesack excels at breaking down complex, technology-based issues into every-day language, and his practice often focuses on prior art, claim construction, and invalidity or infringement analysis.  Mr. Kesack is adept at negotiating favorable settlement agreements in plaintiff-side patent litigation campaigns.

Education
Penn State University
BS Nuclear Engineering 2005, Magna Cum Laude
 
Texas A&M University
Completed all Doctorate Coursework for a degree in Nuclear Engineering, passed Qualification Exam for Doctorate
 
New York University Law School
J.D., 2012

 

Prior Associations
Weil, Gotshal & Manges

Patent Litigation Associate, 2012-2013

 

KSM Advocates, Kampala Uganda

Intellectual Property Associate, 2011

Admissions

The State Bar of New York.

 

United States Federal Courts

Southern District of New York

Eastern District of New York

District of Colorado

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Notable Representations
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., d/b/a WAC Lighting

Counsel for defendant WAC Lighting in a patent infringement action filed by Philips (represented by Finnegan Henderson) in the District of Massachusetts involving 10 patents relating to LED technology including patents originating from Color Kinetics Inc.

 

Philips Lighting v. Wangs Alliance Corp., d/b/a WAC Lighting

Counsel for respondent WAC Lighting in an International Trade Commission Investigation brought by Philips involving five patents relating to LED technology.

 

IPRs 2015-1287, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293 and 1294 (WAC Lighting v. Philips)

Counsel for Petitioner WAC Lighting in seven (7) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board requesting the cancellation of asserted invalid claims in Philips’ U.S. Patent Nos. 6,013,988; 6,147,458; 6,250,774; 6,561,690; 6,586,890; 7,038,399; and 7,352,138.

 

IPRs 2018-1748 and 2019-1582 (Enercorp v. SDI)

Counsel for Patent Owner SDI in two (2) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board involving SDI Patent Nos. 8,945,256 and 9,861,921.
 

IPRs 2018-1482, 1483, 1484, 1485 (Everlight v. Bridgelux)

Counsel for Patent Owner Bridgelux in four (4) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board involving Bridgelux Patent Nos. 6,869,812; 8,567,988; 8,092,051; and 8,256,929.

 

Blackbird Tech LLC v. 1000Bulbs.com and Precision Light & Transformer

Counsel for defendants in Blackbird’s assertion of U.S. Patent No. 7,086,747 against LED T8 tubes made by, among others, ETi, Green Creative, PlusRite and ELB Electrical.  Settled on favorable terms for defendants.

 

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Halco Lighting Technologies LLC

Counsel for defendant Halco in separate actions involving Blackbird’s assertion of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,086,747 and 7,114,834 against LED T8 tubes.  Settled on favorable terms for defendant.

 

Blackbird Tech LLC v. EiKO Global, LLC

Counsel for defendant EiKO in Blackbird’s assertion of U.S. Patent No. 7,086,747 against LED T8 tubes.  Obtained voluntary dismissal.

 

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Plusrite and Fanlight Inc.

Lead counsel for defendants in Blackbird’s assertion of U.S. Patent No. 7,086,747 against LED T8 tubes

 

Aqua Lighting v. Leslie’s Poolmart (wrt Halco products)

Counsel for Halco in Aqua’s assertion of U.S. Patent No. 6,616,291 against LED pool lights.

 

Philips v. Howard Corp.

Counsel for Howard in a patent infringement action filed by Philips in the District of Mississippi involving 4 patents relating to LED technology.

 

GoLight, Inc. v. AAC Enterprise, d/b/a Oracle Lighting

Counsel for Oracle in a patent infringement and trade dress action filed by GoLight in the District of Colorado involving a patent relating to LED technology.  

 

Super Lighting v. Maxlite

Counsel for defendant Maxlite in a patent infringement action filed by Super Lighting in the Central District of California involving 6 patents relating to T8 LED tubes.

 

Fiber LLC v. Finisar Corp. et al.

Counsel for defendant Finisar Corp. In patent infringement action filed by Fiber LLC in the District of Colorado, and in subsequent Federal Circuit appeal, involving optical communication technology.  Obtained favorable claim construction that resulted in stipulated judgment of non-infringement and invalidity

 

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Finisar Corp. asserting six patents in a patent infringement action against Nistica (represented by Dentons LLP) in the Northern District of California involving optical communication technology.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc.

Primary counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California involving Internet of Things (“IoT”) semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms prior to the opening of discovery.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Synopsys, Inc.

Primary counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas involving Internet of Things (“IoT”) semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms after limited discovery and service of detailed infringement contentions.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. NXP Semiconductor Netherlands B.V. and NXP USA, Inc.

Primary counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas involving Internet of Things (“IoT”) semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms prior to the opening of discovery.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. The Athena Group, Inc.

Primary counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Florida involving IoT semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms after defeating a motion to dismiss.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Redpine Signals, Inc.

Primary counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California involving IoT semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms prior to the opening of discovery.

 

UPF Innovations, LLC v. Coherent Logix Inc.

Primary counsel for plaintiff UPF asserting one patent in a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas involving IoT semiconductor security.  Settled on favorable terms prior to the opening of discovery.

 

Zond LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp. & Renesas Electronics America Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. & Global Foundries U.S., Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. TSMC and Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. Toshiba Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. SK Hynix Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.  Settled on favorable terms after limited discovery and Zond’s service of detailed infringement contentions.

 

Zond, LLC v. Gillette Corp. and Proctor & Gamble Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting ten patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving plasma deposition technology.

 

Zond, LLC v. Intel Corp.

Counsel for plaintiff Zond asserting seven patents in a patent infringement action pending in the District of Massachusetts involving semiconductor processes employing plasma deposition technology.

 

Veeco v. SGL Carbon SE et al.

Counsel for SGL in a multi-patent dispute pending in the Eastern District of New York involving CVD technology to make semiconductor light-emitting devices.

 

Mears Technologies Inc. v. Finisar Corp.

Counsel for Defendant Finisar Corp. in patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving optical communication technology.  Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement.

 

Swan Co. Ltd. v. Finisar Corp. & Fujitsu Ltd.

Counsel for defendant Finisar Corp. in patent infringement action filed by Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. (represented by Fish & Richardson)  pending in the Eastern District of Texas involving optical communication technology.  Obtained favorable settlement after fact discovery and claim construction.

 

IPRs 2014-0460, 0461, 0462 and 0465 (Finisar v. Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd)

Counsel for Petitioner Finisar in four (4) Inter Partes Reviews before the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board requesting the cancellation of invalid claims being asserted by Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,145,710; 7,664,395; 8,089,683 and 8,335,033.

The Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6910, New York, NY 10118  Phone: (646) 502-5950
Radulescu LLP. All rights are reserved  ©2019