Daniel Vinson’s practice focuses on high-stakes business disputes and complex litigation, with a particular focus on intellectual property litigation. Mr. Vinson has experience in various stages of litigation and investigations, including drafting dispositive motions, taking depositions, preparing witnesses for depositions, and managing discovery efforts.
During law school, Mr. Vinson served as online articles editor for The University of Chicago Law Review and was the student director of the Kirkland & Ellis Corporate Lab.
Before law school, Mr. Vinson was a technical services engineer for Epic Systems Corporation, where he worked on radiology software for large hospital systems. He investigated software issues, assisted hospitals in implementing new functionality, completed client-driven programming projects, reviewed programming projects for unintended consequences, and explained complex issues to non-technical stakeholders.
As an undergraduate, Mr. Vinson conducted research for the Brown University Institute for Molecular and Nanoscale Innovation. He was also a secondary author on a scientific paper published in Environmental Science and Technology on the toxicity of carbon nanomaterials. Additionally, he spent a semester abroad at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
- Representing Southern California Edison and Edison International in litigation arising out of the 2017 Thomas Fire and 2018 Montecito Mudslides.
- Prefiling patent analysis relating to semiconductor technology, including claim construction, infringement, and validity.
- Represented a leading global professional services company in an $830 million actuarial malpractice lawsuit brought by the city of Houston in connection with the city’s $6.2 billion pension crisis.
- Alec Baldwin v. Mary Boone et al. Obtained a seven-figure settlement, representing a full trial victory, on behalf of Alec Baldwin in a high-profile art fraud case against the Mary Boone Gallery.
- Representing Endo Pharmaceuticals, an international pharmaceutical company, in national opioid litigation using an aggressive “affirmative litigation” strategy to bring counterclaims and other parties into cases around the country.