Daniel Kiang

I'll research this attorney before writing the summary.

Let me verify the tracked case and specific litigation outcomes.

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

Specialty / focus areas. Kiang's practice is patent and trademark litigation, with appearances in district courts, the Federal Circuit, the USPTO (PTAB and TTAB), and the ITC, per his firm profile. His technical foundation is in physics and applied mathematics (UC Berkeley), and his PTAB docket is concentrated in electronics and medical-device/wearable-sensor art—most visibly the Masimo pulse-oximetry proceedings against Apple. His published case commentary also covers software/network security (Finjan v. Blue Coat), video-game and computer-graphics IP (Worlds Inc. v. Bungie), mechanical/drilling equipment (M-I Drilling Fluids v. Dynamic Air), and seismic surveying (ION Geophysical), suggesting a generalist electronics-and-mechanical litigation docket rather than a pharma or standards-essential Wi-Fi niche.

Side preference. Based on the tracked data (1 appearance, defendant side, lead counsel), Kiang appears chiefly on the defense side, representing operating companies. His firm bio states he has "extensive experience representing both petitioners and patent owners" in AIA post-grant proceedings, so his PTAB work is genuinely bilateral. The single tracked case—Unified Patents LLC v. Brain Corp, in which he is lead counsel for Brain Corp—fits the defense pattern: Brain Corp (autonomous robotics) as the operating-company/patent-holder facing Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator known for challenging NPE-asserted patents. Note: I was unable to independently verify the procedural posture or outcome of that specific case through web search; the structured case list is the source for this appearance.

Firm context. Kiang has spent his entire legal career at Knobbe Martens, joining in 2015 after law school and making partner effective January 1, 2023. There are no prior-firm moves reflected in the sources reviewed.

Notable matters and outcomes. His most prominent publicly documented engagement is Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., where Knobbe represented Masimo in the ITC Section 337 action and related district court case over pulse oximetry; the ITC issued a limited exclusion order, and the Federal Circuit lifted a stay in January 2024, reinstating the Apple Watch import ban. Kiang is listed on the Masimo trial team and appears as counsel of record for Masimo in multiple related Apple IPRs (e.g., IPR2022-01291, -01465, -01466 and IPR2024-00241, -00243, -00244). His "News & Insights" entries—Philips v. ZOLL ($10.4M defibrillator verdict after a $200M ask), the ION Geophysical damages reduction to $26M, and the Finjan and Worlds Federal Circuit summaries—appear to be authored case commentary rather than matters on which he is confirmed counsel, so I'd treat those as writing credits, not verified results.

PTAB / IPR experience. Yes—this is a recurring part of his practice. He appears repeatedly as counsel of record for Masimo in Apple's IPR challenges to Masimo wearable-sensor patents, and his firm bio expressly flags AIA post-grant practice (IPRs) representing both petitioners and patent owners. His USPTO registration (Reg. No. 79,631) is current.

Bar / education. State Bar of California; admitted to the Federal Circuit, C.D. Cal., and S.D. Cal.; registered patent attorney (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" (2025–2026) for patent litigation.