Daniel Mateo

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me dig into the tracked case and firm context.

Let me check the attorney's firm history and identity more precisely.

Daniel Mateo — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus areas. Mateo is not a career patent litigator. His practice is complex commercial litigation and arbitration, with a stated concentration in pharmaceutical and life sciences disputes, plus financial services, telecommunications, oil and gas, software, and consumer products (AL DÍA; Pennsylvania Record, Sept. 2024). His single tracked patent matter, Aspex Eyewear, Inc. et al. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., is a mechanical/consumer-product case — magnetic clip-on auxiliary eyeglass frames and the asserted patents (U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,737,054; 6,012,811; 6,092,896) — so the patent work reflected in the data is mechanical/consumer-products, not Wi-Fi standards, software, or pharmaceutical-chemistry patent prosecution. No source found indicating he handles patent prosecution or standards-essential-patent matters.

Side preference. Exclusively defense-side in the tracked data: 0 plaintiff appearances, 1 defendant appearance. In Aspex, he was listed for defendant Altair Eyewear, an operating eyewear company, against a plaintiff-side patent enforcer (Aspex/Contour Optik). There is no tracked or web-sourced indication of NPE/PAE-side assertion work.

Firm context. The tracked appearance is at Reed Smith, where he spent more than 20 years in the firm's Princeton and Philadelphia offices. In July 2018 he left Reed Smith as an equity partner to help launch Holland & Knight's Philadelphia office, moving with a 12-lawyer group that included Reed Smith litigator Tracy Zurzolo Quinn — the attorney who argued the Aspex appeal for Altair (The Legal Intelligencer, Mar. 2019; Above the Law, July 2018; CDR). He is currently described as a partner in Holland & Knight's Miami and Philadelphia offices (Pennsylvania Record). Note: the tracked case list still reflects Reed Smith, consistent with the 2002–2012 timeframe of the Aspex litigation. A Law360 attorney profile under the same name lists "Daniel Mateo" at Polsinelli (Miami) on 2024–2025 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals product-liability matters; I could not verify whether that is the same individual.

Notable cases / outcomes. Aspex v. Altair is the only tracked patent case, and it was long-running: S.D.N.Y. denied Altair summary judgment on standing (361 F. Supp. 2d 210) and granted Altair summary judgment of non-infringement on all three patents (485 F. Supp. 2d 310, 2007); the Federal Circuit reversed in part as to the '054 patent but affirmed as to the '811 and '896 patents (288 F. App'x 697, 2008). After transfer to D. Mass., the district court found literal infringement of claim 1 of the '054 patent and rejected Altair's anticipation defense (Oct. 2011), and the Federal Circuit affirmed per curiam (484 F. App'x 565, 2012) — an adverse final result for the client Mateo's firm represented. Reed Smith's Federal Circuit brief in that appeal lists Tracy Zurzolo Quinn, Carl H. Pierce, and Matthew P. Frederick, with James C. Martin and Kevin S. Katona of counsel; Mateo is not listed among the appellate counsel, so his involvement appears to have been at an earlier stage of the litigation. Beyond this matter, his higher-profile public work is pharmaceutical/life sciences and commercial disputes rather than patent verdicts.

PTAB / IPR experience. None identified. No IPR, PGR, or CBM filings found naming him, and his tracked patent case predates the AIA post-grant regime (the '054 patent instead went through ex parte reexamination at the USPTO, sought by his client's side).

Bar / education. B.A., Rutgers University (New Brunswick); J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law School, per AL DÍA reporting. Specific bar admissions were not independently verified in the sources reviewed.