+1 415 374 2325
+1 415 374 2499
Partner, San Francisco
Dr. Christian Mammen is a litigator with over seventeen years’ experience litigating patents and related technology disputes. His trial and appellate experience includes some of the highest-profile, most complex patent cases in the U.S. He has led both large and small litigation teams, and has substantial first-chair experience, including arguing Markman hearings, arguing summary judgment hearings, taking and defending key technical and patent law expert depositions, and arguing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Chris has a demonstrated facility with a wide range of technologies, including mobile communications, digital video and audio, Internet (including search), online payment authentication, electronic circuits and microprocessors, and high temperature superconductivity.
Chris is also a Lecturer in Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (UC Hastings), where he has taught since 2009. He teaches a seminar on Current Topics in Patent Law, and has taught Civil Procedure, Evidence, Electronic Discovery, and Property. During 2011-2012, Chris served as the Acting Assistant Dean of International and Graduate Programs at UC Hastings, and his responsibilities included the International LLM program. He has also taught Pretrial Civil Litigation at the University of California Berkeley School of Law. He has been a Visiting Scholar at Stanford Law School and an Academic Visitor at the University of Oxford Faculty of Law. Chris has written and lectured widely on patent law. In 2011, the Federal Circuit’s en banc majority in Therasense v. Becton Dickinson cited Chris’ scholarship on the inequitable conduct defense in patent litigation. In February 2013, Chris squared off against Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley in an Oxford-style debate.
Prior to joining the firm in 2012, Chris practiced for more than fifteen years in the San Francisco Bay Area with several nationally-known law firms. Between law school and entering private practice, Chris earned a doctorate in law at Oxford University. His scholarly dissertation was published in 2002 as a book titled “Using Legislative History in American Statutory Interpretation.” Chris also clerked for the Honorable Robert R. Beezer on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Representative IP Litigation
- Gordium Innovations LLC v. Sixnet, Inc., D.Del. Represent Sixnet in patent infringement suit involving packet timing delay circuits.
- Gordium Innovations LLC v. N-TRON, D. Del. Represent N-TRON in patent infringement suit involving packet timing delay circuits.
- eBay Inc. v. Dotcom Retail Limited, N.D. Cal. Represent eBay in trademark infringement suit.
- Deep9 v. Barnes & Noble, W.D.Wash. and Federal Circuit. Represented Deep9 in patent infringement suit involving online database synchronization. Argued Federal Circuit appeal.
- Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. v. Kinetic Technologies, Inc., N.D. Cal. Represented Kinetic in a patent infringement action. Won a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of complaint based on Iqbal / Twombly.*
- Amgen v. Roche, D. Mass. and Federal Circuit. Represented Amgen in declaratory judgment patent infringement action and Federal Circuit appeal involving recombinant erythropoietin. Case was tried to a verdict in a 4-week jury and bench trial.*
- Versata v. SAP, E.D. Tex. Represented SAP in patent infringement suit involving artificial intelligence software and eCommerce technology.*
- Qualcomm v. Nokia, S.D. Cal, AAA and Federal Circuit. Represented Qualcomm in a patent infringement suit involving cellular telephone technology. Coordinated global strategy for multi-jurisdictional litigation. Argued Federal Circuit appeal.*
- Qualcomm v. Broadcom, S.D. Cal. Represented Qualcomm in a patent infringement suit involving H.264 digital video compression technology.*
Representative Appellate Matters
- Rubicon Global Ventures et al. v. Chongqing Zongshen Group Import/Export Corp. et al., Ninth Circuit. Represented defendants in complex commercial dispute involving multiple parallel lawsuits; via motion to recall mandate in prior appeal, secured dismissal of one defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Deep9 v. Barnes & Noble, Federal Circuit. Represented Deep9 in patent infringement suit involving online database synchronization. Argued Federal Circuit appeal.
- Therasense v. Becton Dickinson, Federal Circuit. Submitted amicus brief on behalf of nine IP Law Professors in support of en banc review of inequitable conduct doctrine.*
- Amgen v. Roche, Federal Circuit. Counsel for Amgen in appeal of post-verdict preliminary injunction.*
- Qualcomm v. Nokia, Federal Circuit. Represented Qualcomm in a patent infringement suit involving cellular telephone technology. Argued Federal Circuit appeal.*
- Rasul v. Bush, Supreme Court of the United States. Represented Amici Curiae Center for Justice and Accountability and numerous individual advocates for the rule of law from emerging democracies in an amicus brief in the Guantanamo Bay detainee case.*
- ISCO International, Inc. v. Conductus, Inc., et al., Federal Circuit. Represented Superconductor Technologies (STI) in appeal of jury verdict and final judgment in patent infringement case.*
* Matter handled prior to joining Hogan Lovells
Panelist, 15th Annual Silicon Valley Advanced Patent Law Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Panelist, "Claim Construction and De Novo Review." 14th Annual Silicon Valley Advanced Patent Law Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Panelist, "Asserting Intellectual Property Rights Without Running Afoul of Antitrust Laws.” Annual Conference of the International Bar Association, Boston, MA
"Recent Developments in Patent Law." 86th Annual Meeting of the State Bar of California, San Jose, CA
Panelist, "Demystifying Technology Assisted Review." Webinar, San Francisco, CA
Oxford-Style Debate versus Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley. UC Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
Academic commentator, "LAB Project Conference on Industry/Academic Collaborations: Lessons From the Trenches." UC Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
"The Duty of Disclosure after Therasense." Practising Law Institute, Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop, San Francisco, CA
Hogan Lovells Publications
28 August 2015
"California Legislature Advances UAS Legislation." Chronicle of Data Protection, Hogan Lovells
"IPMT Newsletter - Spring 2014."
15 August 2013
"Intellectual Property Newsletter - August 2013." IP Alert, Hogan Lovells
15 April 2013
"Intellectual Property Newsletter - April 2013." IP Alert, Hogan Lovells
20 March 2013
"Standard of Appellate Review for Patent Claim Construction in the Spotlight." Hogan Lovells Alert, Hogan Lovells
15 January 2013
"Intellectual Property Newsletter - January 2013." IP Alert, Hogan Lovells
"Shifting Attitudes to Injunctions in Patent Cases." Managing Intellectual Property
"The Coming Lame Duck Status of Form 18 for Patent Infringement Suits." Intellectual Property Magazine
18 September 2014
"Patent Reform Is Coming, but Not From Congress." Corporate Counsel
"Seven Steps to Choosing the Right e-Discovery Vendor." The Recorder
"Getting Patent Reform Right." Intellectual Property Magazine
"Patent Claim Construction as a Form of Legal Interpretation." 12 John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law 40
"Take Charge of Your Career: Five Things Every Law Student and Young Lawyer Can Do." The Recorder
"File Sharing is Dead! Long Live File Sharing! Recent Developments in the Law of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement." 33 Comm/Ent: Hastings Communication and Entertainment Law Journal 443
"Revisiting the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct Before the Patent and Trademark Office." XXI Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 1007
"Controlling the ‘Plague’: Reforming the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct." 24 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1329
"The Federal Circuit and Inequitable Conduct." Intellectual Property, ABA
"Using Legislative History in American Statutory Interpretation.", Kluwer Law International
"Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: The Timing of Contacts for Jurisdiction and Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391." 78 Cornell L. Rev. 708