Daniel J. Santos

Attorney in Atlanta, GA
Author: "What Does 'Means' Mean," Intellectual Property Today, October, 1997; "' Means-Plus-Function' Can Cause Drafting Angst," The National Law Journal, October 20, 1997; "A New Frontier in Patents: Patent Claims to Propagated Signals," The John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law, Vol. XVII, Number 1. Examiner, Group 2600, Art Unit 2606, Image Analysis, Electrical, U.S. Patent Office, 1989-1991.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 4.6 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Patent
  • Trademark and Copyright Law
  • International Patents


Peer Rating


Overall Peer Rating

in Patents and Intellectual Property
4.6 out of 5.0

Legal Knowledge
Analytical Capabilities
Communication Ability
Legal Experience

  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Legal Community Activity

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1995, Georgia and U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia
registered to practice before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Law School Attended

Georgia State University
Class of 1995

University Attended

Clemson University
Class of 1989


U.S. Army, 1982-1984

Special Agencies

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Associations & Memberships

State Bar of Georgia (Member: Patent and Legislation Committee; Intellectual Property Law Section); American Bar Association; American Intellectual Property Law Association; Institute of Elect... More

Contact Information


770-709-0013 Call Now


Send email to Daniel J. Santos

Social Networking

Office Information
Daniel J. Santos
 Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 700,
Atlanta, GA 30346-2105

Maintains an office in multiple locations

Smith Risley Tempel Santos LLC (Atlanta, Georgia)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.


Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.