Daniel C. Kiang

Daniel C. Kiang — Knobbe Martens (Irvine/Orange County, CA)

Specialty / focus. Kiang is an IP litigator with a physics and applied-mathematics background (UC Berkeley) whose matters cluster around hardware, medical, and consumer-electronics technologies rather than pharma/chemistry. His representative engagements include wearable health monitoring and pulse oximetry (Masimo), consumer electronics and displays (VIZIO), streaming/gaming and network security software (Worlds Inc. v. Bungie; Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems), seismic survey equipment (ION Geophysical), medical devices (Philips v. ZOLL defibrillators), industrial/mechanical equipment (M-I Drilling Fluids UK v. Dynamic Air), and autonomous robotics and robot navigation (Brain Corp). He litigates in district courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and the PTAB, and his firm bio also lists a trademark litigation component.

Side preference. This is largely an operating-company defense practice. The tracked docket data is thin — one appearance, on the defendant side — but it is consistent with the broader record: he defends technology companies accused of infringement and defends patent owners' validity, rather than asserting patents for NPEs/PAEs. In post-grant proceedings he has worked both sides of the "v." — as petitioner's counsel for VIZIO and as patent owner's counsel for Masimo — but there is no indication of plaintiff-side assertion work for non-practicing entities.

Firm context. He has spent his entire legal career at Knobbe Martens, joining as an associate after graduating in 2015 and becoming a partner effective January 1, 2023. He is based in the firm's Orange County office. No in-house or prior-firm litigation history is reliably sourced.

Notable matters and PTAB experience. His most prominent work is the Masimo v. Apple dispute over Apple Watch pulse oximetry: Knobbe's team, including Kiang, obtained a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist order from the ITC in Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1276 (2023), which the Federal Circuit allowed to take effect after lifting a temporary stay, and the firm received FT Innovative Lawyers recognition for it. He also appears repeatedly on the patent-owner side in related Apple v. Masimo IPRs (e.g., IPR2022‑01465 on U.S. Patent 10,687,745, and IPR2024‑00241/‑00243/‑00244), and on the petitioner side for VIZIO in PTAB proceedings — so he is a regular PTAB practitioner, not an occasional one. Other cited outcomes on his bio include a jury verdict of $10.4M for Philips against ZOLL and a reduction of an ION Geophysical damages award from $124M to $26M. His single tracked district court appearance is Unified Patents v. Brain Corp (defendant side), in which the firm represented Brain Corp, a San Diego autonomous-robotics company, against Unified Patents.

Bar / education. Admitted to the State Bar of California (2015); also admitted before the Federal Circuit and the C.D. and S.D. of California; registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 79,631). J.D., UCLA School of Law (2015); B.A. in physics and applied mathematics, UC Berkeley (2012). Recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for patent litigation (2025–2026).