Dr. Christian Mammen
Intellirights thanks Dr. Christian Mammen for taking the time to discuss the doctrine of inequitable conduct and the amicus curiae brief he submitted on behalf of IP law professors in the en banc case of Therasense Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., Fed. Cir., No. 2008-1511. As noted in an earlier Intellirights story, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in that case on November 9, 2010.
Professor Mammen received his undergraduate degree from Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas and his J.D. from Cornell Law School. After law school, he earned a doctorate in jurisprudence from Oxford University in England. His scholarly dissertation entitled Using Legislative History in American Statutory Interpretation was published in 2002. From 1995-1996, Dr. Mammen served as a law clerk to the Hon. Robert R. Beezer on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dr. Mammen has practiced for the last 13 years in patent and related intellectual property litigation and appeals in San Francisco and Silicon Valley. Dr. Mammen has taught courses in property, civil procedure, evidence, and e-discovery at Hastings, and has taught pretrial civil litigation at U.C. Berkeley’s Boalt Hall. He has also written and lectured in patent law.
From 1997-2005, Dr. Mammen practiced intellectual property and appellate litigation in the San Francisco office of Heller Ehrman. He joined the Silicon Valley IP litigation team at Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder in 2005, and was a partner there from 2007-2008. He has litigated a number of IP cases in a wide range of technologies, including Internet search, high temperature superconductivity, mobile telecommunications, digital video and audio, and biotechnology.
Besides himself, the other professors listed on Dr. Mammen’s amicus brief are William T. Gallagher, Associate Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law; Michael Risch, Associate Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law; Joshua D. Sarnoff, Associate Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law; and Toshiko Takenaka, Ph.D., University of Washington School of Law.
Eric Yeager’s conversation with Dr. Mammen tracks inequitable conduct being first identified as a patent litigation “plague” in the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Burlington Industries Inc. v. Dayco Corp., 849 F.2d 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the court’s en banc statement on the intent standard in Kingsdown Medical Consultants v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988), PTO Rule 56 (37 C.F.R. 1.56) and the proper threshold for materiality, and recent cases showing the difficulty in balancing intent and materiality. Noteworthy cases covered in this discussion are Ferring B.V. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 437 F.3d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006); McKesson Information Solutions Inc. v. Bridge Medical Inc., 487 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania Inc., 504 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2007); and Avid Identification Systems Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp., 603 F. 967 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Again, we welcome Dr. Mammen to our forum and thank him for his time and insight.
|< Prev||Next >|
|Powered By relatedArticle|