Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
Partner
Tel (703) 413-6560

Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.

Partner

DANIEL (DAN) J. PEREIRA, Ph.D., a chemical biotech patent attorney, is a partner in the firm's Chemical Patent Prosecution group and an active member of the Patent Interferences group. His practice focuses on client counseling, portfolio management, patent prosecution, litigation and interferences involving a wide range of technologies. Dr. Pereira has particular expertise in the medical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical fields.

Dr. Pereira has served as co-counsel on interferences cases, advising on issues ranging from strategies for avoiding interferences to strategies for provoking them. He has also acted as co-counsel in declared interferences. Dr. Pereira handles appeals before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), district court patent litigations, and Federal Circuit appeals, and has extensive experience providing pre-litigation and litigation avoidance counseling to clients. Additionally, Dr. Pereira assists both foreign and domestic clients of all sizes with licensing and contract negotiations, due diligence analyses and risk assessment in intellectual property asset acquisition transactions.

Prior to joining the firm, Dr. Pereira worked as a post-doctoral research scientist at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine where he conducted research in the fields of neurodegeneration and transgenic mouse models of human disease. While obtaining his degrees, he studied gene expression and gene therapy and performed research in the area of leukemia pathogenesis.

Publications

Saturday, March 7, 2009
Thursday, July 12, 2012

In Ex parte Treacy et al. (Appeal 2011-008520; Application serial no.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Ex parte Jones et al (Appeal 2010-011287, Serial no. 11/082,103) turned on obviousness of a claim directed to a method of creating a specialized alloy.  There was a gap in the prior art relative to a limitation of applying two different particles to an alloy where one of he particles alters the alloy differently than the...

Friday, March 23, 2012

In Ex parte HENRY et al (Appeal 2011-006558; Application 10/558,753) the Board was presented the question of whether the Examiner adequately supported the rejection based on evidence.  The invention in Henry was a process for the manufacture of an aluminum plated strip comprising at least two plating layers of two...

Friday, March 02, 2012

In Ex parte Bouzekri (Appeal 2010-005203), the BPAI affirmed the examiner’s finding of obviousness and reiterated some important points which often arise in patenting:

  • overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious;
  • preferable ranges are not dispositive of non-obviousness (e.g., do not necessarily provide a “...
Thursday, February 23, 2012

On February 17, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential ruling in Clearvalue, Inc.. v Pearl River Polymers, Inc (2011-1078) that was an appeal from a jury verdict in an infringement suit in the District Court involving U.S. patent no. 6,120,690.  While there were several issues, the issue of this article focuses on is the...

Thursday, July 14, 2011

The claims in Perc (Appeal No. 2011-003119, Application No.

Monday, July 11, 2011

In Ex parte Uchida (Appeal 2011-000486 of Appl. Serial No. 11/731,595), the questions before the board were (1) the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed range of “about 0.01 μm to about 40 μm” and whether that overlapped with a range of “between about 50 and about 1000 μm” in the prior art and (2) whether the Declaration...

Friday, July 01, 2011

In Ex parte Latorse (Appeal 2011-003703; U.S.