Hyun-Joong (Daniel) Kim

Associate

Kim-Hyun-Joong-200
  • JD, New York University School of Law, 2014; Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, articles editor
  • BSE (Biomedical and Electrical Engineering), cum laude, with distinction, Duke University, 2009; Tau Beta Pi

Qualifications

  • New York, 2015

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2018
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2015
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 2015
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, 2019
  • Korean (Native)
  • New York City Bar Associate Leadership Institute, 2019 
  • Tau Beta Pi
  • American Bar Association

Hyun-Joong (Daniel) Kim

Associate

Hyun-Joong (Daniel) Kim is an associate in the intellectual property litigation group focusing on patent matters and has represented clients in various technical fields, including software, automotive technology, LED displays, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical devices. Daniel has litigated patent cases in a number of jurisdictions, including federal district courts, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and United States International Trade Commission. Daniel has experience at all stages of litigation, from pre-suit investigation through trial and appeal.

Daniel earned his B.S.E. degree from Duke University with dual majors in Biomedical and Electrical Engineering, where he worked as a researcher in Biomedical Interferometry and Optical Spectroscopy (BIOS) Research Group under the guidance of Dr. Wax, with particular focuses on spectroscopy and signals. Daniel received his law degree from New York University School of Law, where he was an articles editor for the NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law.

Experience

  • Ultravision Techs., LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) – Defending Samsung in a multi-patent dispute relating to LED displays.
  • A Global Vehicle for Hire Company (D. Del.) – Successfully dismissed a patent infringement complaint, based on a patent directed to a global positioning system (GPS) device, against a global vehicle for hire company.
  • A Global Leader in Medical Technology, Services, and Solutions (PTAB) – Defended the patent owner in inter partes reviews of patents relating to stents and medical devices made of shape memory alloys.
  • A Global Leader in Medical Technology, Services, and Solutions (D. Del.) – Defended a global leader in medical technology, services, and solutions in patent litigation related to medical devices for disease inspection and diagnosis.
  • Ropes & Gray LLP (UDRP) – On behalf of the firm, obtained domain names confusingly similar to Ropes & Gray’s trademark from cybersquatters.
  • Ragner Technology Corp. et al. v. National Express / Telebrands (D.N.J.) – Representing patent owner Ragner Technology Corp. and exclusive licensee Tristar Products, Inc. in a set of competitor cases, asserting patents covering expandable garden hoses and methods of use, as well as false advertising and unfair competition claims.  
  • Certain L-Tryptophan, L-Tryptophan Products, and Their Methods of Production (337-TA-1005 / Fed. Cir.) – Defending CJ CheilJedang adverse to its competitor Ajinomoto in a two-patent dispute relating to genetically-modified bacteria for the production of L-Tryptophan. Secured initial determination of no violation of Section 337 at trial, with the presiding Administrative Law Judge finding both patents to be invalid and not infringed and that Ajinomoto failed to satisfy the domestic industry requirement.
  • Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC (D. Mass.) – Represented Abiomed in a matter relating to an intravascular blood bump.
  • Allure Energy, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – Member of the team defending Honeywell International Inc. in a patent infringement litigation involving smart thermostats.
  • CardioNet, LLC et al. v. Mednet Healthcare Techs., Inc., et al. (E.D. Pa.) – Member of the team that subsequently prevailed in proving contempt of the consent judgment by co-defendant MedTel24, Inc. Appeal dismissed.
  • CardioNet, LLC et al. v. the ScottCare Corp., et al. (E.D. Pa.) – Represents plaintiffs in a patent infringement litigation involving five patents directed to remote cardiac monitoring devices.
  • Invista North America S.a. R.I. v. Hanwha Corporation (TTAB) – Successfully defended our client in an opposition proceeding, permitting Hanwha to register its word-and-design mark for renewable energy services.

Publications

  • Co-author, “Opportunities Abound In Patent Litigation Funding At The ITC,” Law360 (November 6, 2019) 
  • Assisted, Tyler K. Drake, Francisco E. Robles, and Adam Wax, “Multiplexed low coherence interferometry instrument for measuring microbicide gel thickness distribution,” App. Opt. 48, D14-D19 (2009)
  • JD, New York University School of Law, 2014; Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, articles editor
  • BSE (Biomedical and Electrical Engineering), cum laude, with distinction, Duke University, 2009; Tau Beta Pi
Cookie Settings