IP Due Diligence
International Dispute Resolution
Patent & Trade Secret Litigation
Patent Preparation & Prosecution
Trademark & Copyright Protection
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
Boston College Law School - J.D., 2003
Boston College - B.S., 2000, summa cum laude
Danielle Vincenti Tully has more than 15 years of experience handling complex patent, trade secret, copyright, and trademark litigations for clients in a wide range of technology areas, including pharmaceutical, medical device, computer hardware and software, digital television and telecommunications. She has represented clients in the U.S. district courts including the District of Delaware, Eastern District of Texas and Northern District of California, as well as in the United States International Trade Commission. Danielle also represents clients in appeals to the Federal Circuit and other appellate courts. Her experience also includes handling ex parte and inter partes proceedings in the Patent & Trademark Office, patent prosecution, and counseling clients in a variety of IP and due diligence matters.
Danielle received a 2020 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing as co-author of “How Fed. Circ. May Defer To PTAB In Facebook Case,” published in Law360.
Prior to joining Cadwalader, Danielle was an associate at Morgan & Finnegan, LLP. She is a member of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association and the American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Section.
Danielle earned her J.D. from Boston College and her B.S., summa cum laude, in Biology from Boston College where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and Alpha Sigma Nu. She is admitted to practice in New York and before the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern, Southern and Northern Districts of New York. She is also admitted to practice before the Federal Circuit and is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Representative District Court Litigations
- Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Brother International Corporation (D. Del.): Representing Brother in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning six patents directed to various technologies, including JPEG compression, storage buffering in image processing, auto-cropping of an image, end of session notification, and authentication and secure access for printers in a network.
- OpenText Corp. v. Alfresco Software Ltd. (W.D. Tex.): Representing defendant Alfresco in a series of three law suits filed by competitor OpenText alleging infringement of nine patents related to enterprise information management technology, including data storage, retention, and synchronization. We succeeded in securing a venue transfer of the three cases to the Central District of California where OpenText also filed suit against Alfresco’s parent company, Hyland Software. Judge Albright granted the transfer sua sponte after originally denying Alfresco’s motion to transfer and while Alfresco’s petition for mandamus was pending at the Federal Circuit.
- OpenText Corp. v. Hyland Software, Inc. (C.D. Cal.): Representing defendant Hyland in two separate litigations filed by competitor OpenText alleging infringement of eight patents related to enterprise information management technology, including data storage, retention, and synchronization. Cadwalader succeeded in invalidating two of the patents in an early motion on the pleadings under Section 101. Cadwalader further narrowed the case during claim construction, garnering a win under Section 112.
- CR. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., (D. Del.): Defended AngioDynamics from the pleading stage through trial against allegations of patent infringement relating to vascular access port medical devices. At trial, Plaintiff Bard sought upwards of $200m in damages but suffered a complete defense victory on all grounds. Following a successful Rule 50(a) motion, the Court issued judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, patent-ineligibility, and no willful infringement.
- CR. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., (D. Utah): Defending AngioDynamics against similar charges of patent infringement in an earlier litigation filed by Bard in Utah.
- Certain Beverage Dispensing Systems and Components Thereof (U.S.I.T.C.): Defending Anheuser-Busch InBev in the ITC against allegations of patent infringement relating to beer dispensing devices.
- Brother Int’l Corp (Various Districts): Representing Brother in numerous litigations filed in E.D. Texas, D. Delaware, and C.D. California concerning printer, scanner, and computer products.
- Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp (S.D.N.Y): Representing Plaintiff Convolve in long-running patent infringement litigation concerning disc drive technology. Case spawned the now-overturned Seagate standard for willful infringement and two further appeals to the Federal Circuit, which most recently overturned a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.
- Adaptix Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, (N.D. Cal.): Defended AT&T Mobility against allegations of patent infringement related to 4G/LTE wireless networks. District court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of all seven asserted patent claims from the two patents-in-suit and, further, invalidated four of those seven patent claims in a separate opinion.
- Ganas LLC v. IBM, et al., 2:10-cv-320 (E.D. Tx.). Defended IBM in multi-defendant patent infringement suit in E.D. Texas for patents dealing with various aspects of operating systems; case settled.
- Catheter Flushing LLC v. AngioDynamics, et al., 2:10-cv.00963 (D. Utah). Defending Angiodynamics in patent infringement suit on patent relating to catheter devices.
- In The Matter of Certain Computer Products, Computer Components And Products Containing Same: Represented complainant IBM before the International Trade Commission in an infringement proceeding involving several of IBM's patents related to cooling, power conservation and router technology against respondents ASUSTek Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International as well as in a parallel federal district court litigation. While on appeal to the Federal Circuit, the case settled on favorable terms.
- Ledergerber Medical Innovations, LLC, et al. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. (N.D. Ill.): Represented defendant Gore in patent infringement action involving a patent related to hernial patches.
- Comcast Cable Communication Corp. v. Finisar Corp.,Civil Action No. 06-4206 (N.D. Cal.): Represented defendant and counterclaim-plaintiff Finisar in a patent infringement action involving digital television broadcast systems.
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, LLC, (D. N.J.): Represented plaintiff DuPont in patent infringement action involving two patents related to flexographic printing plates and thermal processing systems.
- International Business Machines Corp. v. Compuware Corp., Civil Action No. 04-00357 (S.D.N.Y.): Represented plaintiff IBM in patent infringement claims involving computer software related to database management, distributed computing and data processing.
- SCO v. International Business Machines Corp., Civil Action No. 2:03-0294 (D. Utah): Represented defendant IBM in patent counterclaims involving high availability and digital image compression.
- Compuware v. IBM, 02-cv-70906 (E.D. Mich.) Represented defendant IBM against claims of trade secret theft, copyright infringement and antitrust violations and in asserting counterclaims of infringement of six patents related to graphical user interfaces, error detection and system monitoring
- CR. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. AngioDynamics Inc. (C.A. No. 15-218 (D. Del.)) (Case 19-1756; Fed. Cir.) Representing AngioDynamics in pending appeal of dismissal of Bard's entire case
- CR. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. AngioDynamics Inc. (Case 17-1851; Fed. Cir.) Representing AngioDynamics in appeal of three (3) reexamination determinations by the USPTO, affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded
Representative Patent Office Proceedings
- Heineken N.V. v. Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A., IPR2018-01663 (PTAB)
- Heineken N.V. v. Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A., IPR2018-01665 (PTAB)
- Heineken N.V. v. Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A., IPR2018-01667 (PTAB)
- Heineken N.V. v. Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A., IPR2018-01669 (PTAB)