Daniel Noah Lerman

I'll research this attorney's background and verify the case information.

Let me verify the specific case outcomes and Federal Circuit proceedings.

Let me verify his background, bar admissions, education, and prior firm history.

Daniel N. Lerman — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus and specialty. Lerman is an appellate lawyer rather than a first-chair trial litigator, and his patent practice sits almost entirely in the Federal Circuit. His firm biography describes regular briefing and argument of patent appeals involving cybersecurity and telecommunications hardware and software, semiconductors, medical devices, e-commerce platform architecture, and construction equipment, and separately notes patent disputes "in particular in the pharmaceutical industry" (he holds a Ph.D. in genetics and molecular biology). His tracked docket is concentrated in network-security technology — packet filtering, threat detection, and encrypted-communications patents — reflecting his work for Centripetal Networks. He has also handled Federal Circuit appeals for a patent-licensing/technology-asset-management entity, a software company, an e-commerce company, a Norwegian cybersecurity hardware developer, and a slipform-paving equipment manufacturer, and has filed amicus briefs on patent exhaustion and invalidity.

Side preference. The tracked appearances split 3 defendant-side / 2 plaintiff-side, and the underlying record bears out a genuinely mixed practice: his firm bio states he represents clients "as both plaintiffs and defendants," while his most concentrated patent work is for Centripetal Networks, a cybersecurity company asserting its patent portfolio against large operating companies (Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, Keysight). That is, his patent docket leans toward representing a patent owner/asserting company on appeal, alongside representation of operating companies defending PTAB appeals (e.g., software company Cyandia, defending PTAB discretionary-denial procedures against a constitutional challenge). There is no indication he is an in-house lawyer; he is outside counsel at a firm.

Firm context. He is a partner and Head of Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation, US, at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (the firm formed by the 2025 combination of Kramer Levin and Herbert Smith Freehills), resident in Washington, D.C.; the tracked matters appear under both the HSF Kramer and Kramer Levin-era naming. He joined Kramer Levin as a partner in May 2024 as deputy chair of its Supreme Court and Appellate practice. Before that he spent nearly six years in the Appellate Section of the DOJ Criminal Division (including work on January 6 prosecutions), and prior to DOJ he spent eight years at the D.C. boutique Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner (partner in 2017, firm combined into Kramer Levin in 2022). He was named to the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators list.

Notable cases, outcomes, and PTAB/IPR. In Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. he argued for appellant Centripetal before the Federal Circuit, which on April 2, 2026 affirmed the PTAB's finding that a claim of the efficient-decryption patent (U.S. 10,284,526) was unpatentable as anticipated — an adverse result. In Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2026, nonprecedential), the court affirmed the Board's final written decision; five dependent claims survived only because Keysight's IPR petition failed to substantively argue them. In the Palo Alto Networks v. Centripetal appeal (Fed. Cir. No. 2023-2027, Oct. 22, 2025), the court vacated the Board's final written decision for failure to adequately consider evidence of copying and remanded — a favorable outcome for his client. He also appears in the Cisco Systems v. Centripetal Networks matter; for context, the underlying $2.75 billion Cisco judgment was vacated in 2022 on judicial-recusal grounds (a ruling by other counsel, not Lerman) and the Federal Circuit in April 2026 declined to revive Centripetal's infringement claims. On PTAB practice: his IPR experience is predominantly appellate — challenging and defending final written decisions at the Federal Circuit — and I found no public record of him serving as first-chair counsel in PTAB trial proceedings.

Bar and education. Admitted in the District of Columbia (2011) and Maryland (2008); law clerk to Judge William C. Bryson (Fed. Cir., 2008–09) and Judge David S. Tatel (D.C. Cir., 2009–10); J.D. magna cum laude, Georgetown University Law Center (2008); Ph.D., University of Chicago; B.A. magna cum laude, Brown University.

Note: one tracked plaintiff-side matter is listed without a case caption and as lead counsel; I could not identify it from public sources, so it is not described above. Sources: HSF Kramer and Kramer Levin attorney profiles, Business Wire/Kramer Levin lateral announcement (May 2024), Law360, IPWatchdog and Federal Circuit opinions/orders, CourtListener.