Daniel_Secondary_A.png
 

Daniel F. Olejko

Shareholder

dolejko@bosfirm.com | 214.785.6675

As a shareholder at Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dan manages complex commercial cases before federal courts and agencies, with an emphasis on appellate practice. Dan believes that the law should be expressed in a way that can be easily understood by everyone. He prides himself on his ability to translate complex legal and technical concepts to clients, courts, and juries in a simple, straight-forward manner.

Dan has over 10 years of experience litigating patent cases throughout the country. These cases have involved a wide range of patented technologies, including LED controllers, LCD displays, CCD and CMOS image sensors, telecommunications systems, semiconductor design and fabrication techniques, software processes, and medical devices. He has briefed countless cases before the federal courts of appeals, argued over half a dozen of those cases, and achieved successful outcomes for his clients in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In addition, Dan has represented clients in numerous post-grant review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as well as Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission. Dan’s clients have included inventors, small businesses, large technology companies, investors, public and private universities, and research institutions.

Prior to joining Bragalone Olejko Saad, Dan led the appellate division of Shore Chan Bragalone DePumpo LLP, served as a staff attorney for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and worked for the Pennsylvania appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

CSS Accordion
  • J.D., Penn State University Dickinson School of Law, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2007
  • B.S., Computer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 2004
  • Staff Attorney, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2007-09
  • Judicial Intern, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2006-07
  • Judicial Intern, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2005
  • United States Supreme Court
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States District Courts for the Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of Texas
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office
  • Supreme Court of Texas
  • Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
  • American Bar Association
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Pennsylvania Bar Association
  • State Bar of Texas
  • Dallas Bar Association
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
  • Super Lawyers Texas Rising Star, 2020-2021
  • Recognized for Professional Advocacy Excellence by the Federal Circuit Bar Association, 2018
  • Member of the Woolsack Honor Society, 2007
  • Selected as Member of the Appellate Moot Court Board by Prof. Harvey A. Feldman, Penn State University, Dickinson School of Law, 2007
  • Presented with the William L. Wilkes Award by the Editorial Board of the Penn State International Law Review, 2007
  • Named Symposium & Articles Editor by the Editorial Board of the Penn State International Law Review, 2006-2007
  • Presented with the Richard R. Baxter Award by the Editorial Board of the Penn State International Law Review, 2006
  • Recipient of CALI Awards in Criminal Procedure and History of International Law
  • Volunteer, Federal Circuit Bar Association, Government Employees Pro Bono Program
  • Volunteer, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Pro Bono Project
  • Represented over 90 construction workers in collective action against former employers for failure to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act in Brigida v. Valk d/b/a Platinum Construction, No. 3:18-cv-01443-S (N.D. Tex.).
  • Represents whistleblower in lawsuit against a major government contractor under the False Claims Act in United States ex rel. Foreman v. AECOM, No. 1:16-cv-01960 (S.D. N.Y.).
  • Successfully briefed and argued for dismissal of declaratory judgment action for noninfringement, no willful infringement, and equitable estoppel in AU Optronics Corp. America v. Vista Peak Ventures, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-04638-SK (N.D. Cal.), where the district court granted Vista Peak Venture’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
  • Successfully defended patent owner against petitions for covered business method review of two patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Securus Technologies, Inc., CBM2017-00043, -00044 (P.T.A.B.), where the Board found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Successfully briefed appeal of final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Securus Technologies, Inc., 691 F. App’x 628 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion the Board’s findings that 25 claims were unpatentable.
  • Successfully argued appeal of a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 685 F. App’x 979 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the Federal Circuit agreed with Securus that the Board failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision that 13 claims were unpatentable.
  • Successfully briefed and argued appeal of district court’s denial of LG’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief and grant of Wi-LAN’s motion to compel arbitration in LG Electronics, Inc. v. Wi-LAN USA, Inc., 623 F. App’x 568 (2d Cir. 2015), where the Second Circuit rejected LG’s arguments that Wi-LAN waived its right to arbitration and that the “claim splitting” doctrine barred Wi-LAN from litigating its patent infringement claims against LG in federal court while arbitrating a dispute over the interpretation of a patent license agreement.
  • Represented patent owner in lawsuit against 18 major semiconductor companies for infringement of claims related to fundamental circuit designs in HSM Portfolio LLC v. Elpida Memory, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00770-RGA (D. Del.).
  • Represented university in Section 337 investigation at the International Trade Commission against major semiconductor company and cellular phone manufacturers for infringement of patent claims related to fundamental CMOS image sensor designs.
  • Successfully briefed ColorQuick’s response to Vistaprint’s petition for writ of mandamus in the precedential decision of In re Vistaprint, 628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010), where the Federal Circuit agreed with ColorQuick that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vistaprint’s motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on grounds of judicial economy.