Daniel Levy

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me search more specifically for this attorney.

Let me dig deeper on the specific attorney and case.

Daniel Levy — Patent Litigation Summary

Scope of the record. This attorney has a single tracked patent appearance: Therabody Inc. v. Hyperice IP Subco LLC, on the plaintiff/petitioner side, as counsel at O'Melveny & Myers. That matter corresponds to a PTAB post-grant review (PGR2025-00013, filed December 23, 2024) in which Therabody, Inc. challenges claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,082 ("Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length"), a percussive-massage device patent owned by Hyperice IP Subco, LLC. The technology at issue is mechanical/electromechanical consumer-hardware — a reciprocating-piston massage device with a "quick-connect" head system — with grounds spanning written description (§112) and obviousness (§103). Nothing in the record indicates work in Wi-Fi/standard-essential patent, pharmaceutical, or software subject matter.

Side preference. With only one tracked appearance, no reliable side preference can be stated. The single data point is on the plaintiff/petitioner side, but one matter is not a pattern, and it should not be read as a PAE/NPE practice — both parties here are operating wellness-technology companies in a two-way dispute. Note that O'Melveny's broader role in the Therabody–Hyperice conflict has included defending Therabody against Hyperice's parallel infringement suit over a variable-stroke-length patent (C.D. Cal.), so the firm's engagement spans both sides of the same fight; the attorney-level record does not show whether Levy contributed to the defense-side matters.

Firm context. O'Melveny & Myers is the only firm associated with this attorney in the tracked data, and no prior firm history was verifiable. Its IP group is described in Chambers USA as focused on patent infringement litigation for life-science and technology clients — consistent with the one tracked matter.

PTAB/IPR experience. The sole tracked matter is itself a PTAB post-grant review, so there is at least one PGR appearance; there is no evidence of a regular IPR/PGR practice, and no other PTAB filings were located under this name.

Notable outcomes. None verifiable. The PGR and the related district court actions (Hyper Ice, Inc. v. Therabody, Inc., C.D. Cal. Nos. 8:24-cv-02034 and 8:25-cv-01939, plus Therabody counterclaims) were pending as of the most recent docket information available; no verdict, settlement, or Federal Circuit result was found.

Confidence caveats. "Daniel Levy" is a common name and I could not confirm an O'Melveny professional biography page for a Daniel Levy in patent litigation. A "Daniel M G H Levy" appears in California State Bar and Martindale records as an O'Melveny litigation associate (California bar No. 273386, admitted 2010; Fordham University School of Law, 2010; MIT, A.S. 2002), but I was unable to verify that this is the same individual as the patent counsel in the tracked matter, so that bar/education line should be treated as unconfirmed. The plaintiff-side count above rests on the authoritative case list; everything else in this summary is drawn from the PGR petition record and Chambers USA's description of O'Melveny's IP practice, and is limited accordingly.