Overview
Nathan Mammen’s practice focuses on intellectual property trial and appellate litigation. He frequently represents clients and leads teams in “bet-the-company” complex intellectual property matters. He has experience in diverse technologies such as medical devices, radio-frequency identification, wireless communication, semiconductors, bio-technology and pharmaceuticals, and mechanical devices. Nathan is often sought for creative thinking and clear briefing.
He has successfully represented clients in numerous proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, district courts, and the International Trade Commission, and international arbitrations. He also has extensive appellate experience and frequently represents clients in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is an experienced oral advocate who has argued before various state and federal appellate courts.
Nathan is frequently consulted about matters before the PTAB and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He worked as a patent examiner before and during law school.
Nathan is passionate about giving back through pro bono service, and he frequently represents his fellow veterans seeking benefits, including regularly handling appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and bringing attention to systemic legal issues affecting veterans.
Prior to joining Kirkland, Nathan was a law clerk to Chief Judge Karen J. Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Nathan is a veteran of the U.S. Army. He served as appellate counsel in dozens of military criminal cases. In 2012-2013, Nathan volunteered for active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and served as a military prosecutor in Kuwait.
Experience
Representative Matters
Intellectual Property Trial Litigation
- Beidermann Technologies GmbH & Co. v. K2M, Inc. (E.D. Va.) — representing Beidermann in a multi-patent action involving spinal implant technology.
- Certain Blow-Molded Bag-in-Container Devices; Certain Beverage Dispensing Systems (ITC) — successfully represented Heineken in defensive and offensive patent-based ITC investigations relating to blow-molding plastic bottles and drink machines.
- Certain Solid State Storage Drives (ITC) — represented Samsung in patent-based ITC investigation; case settled favorably on the eve of trial.
- Baker Hughes, A GE Company, LLC v. Ulterra Drilling Technologies, L.P. — represented Ulterra in district court infringement action and ten inter partes review proceedings involving petroleum drill bit technology; case settled favorably shortly after filing of IPRs.
- Certain Radio Frequency Identification Products; Neology, Inc. v. Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS, Inc. (ITC, D. Del, & PTAB) — successfully represented Kapsch TrafficCom in a multi-jurisdiction patent infringement action and inter partes review concerning patents alleged to be essential to the 6C/Gen2 RFID standard. Obtained PTAB decision invalidating multiple claims of four patents. Obtained dismissal of ITC Investigation 337-TA-979 after proving at trial that the two patents at issue were invalid on multiple grounds.
- Represented major electronics manufacturer in international arbitration concerning valuation of a portfolio of thousands of patents.
- Element Six U.S. Corporation v Schlumberger Technology Corp. (S.D. Tex. 2014) — represented Schlumberger in declaratory judgment action involving twelve of client’s patents; obtained dismissal of case.
- Certain Wireless Communications Equipment, Inv. No. 337-TA-866 (ITC) (2013) — represented Samsung in ITC investigation concerning wireless communication technologies.
- Represented major defense contractor in international arbitration with foreign competitor concerning intellectual property rights to sensitive defense technology.
Intellectual Property Appellate Litigation
- Neology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2019) — successfully argued appeal for Kapsch TrafficCom achieving affirmance of ITC decision finding no violation because competitor’s patents were invalid for lack of written description.
- Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Brunswick Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2019) — obtained complete reversal on appeal for Brunswick following a trial in which the jury found willful infringement and the district court enhanced damages, awarded attorneys’ fees, and entered a permanent injunction.
- In re Avaya Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2019) — successfully defended appeal of bankruptcy court’s favorable estimation of a creditor’s claim in a first-of-its-kind decision applying patent-law apportionment jurisprudence to valuation of trade secret claims.
- Neology, Inc. v. Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) — successfully argued appeal for Kapsch TrafficCom resulting in affirmance of inter partes review decision that patents asserted against Kapsch in litigation were invalid.
- Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (Fed. Cir. 2017) — successfully represented major pharmaceutical manufacturers in reversing an adverse judgment and remanding for a new trial on whether competitor’s cholesterol-lowering antibody patents are valid.
- OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. American Induction Technologies, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012) — Represented Plaintiff-Appellant in a successful appeal at Federal Circuit; obtained reversal of district court summary judgment ruling invalidating patent.
- Bard Peripheral Vascular v. W.L. Gore (Fed. Cir. 2012), cert denied 133 S. Ct. 932 (2013) — Represented Plaintiff-Appellee in an appeal to the Federal Circuit defending a jury verdict of willful infringement, including a nine-figure damages verdict and an ongoing royalty award.
- SLR Partners v. B. Braun Medical, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010) (S.D. Cal. 2009) — Represented B. Braun Medical in company-threatening patent infringement action, successfully defeating attempts to preclude Braun from marketing its innovative IV catheter and medical connector products.
- Successfully represented leading electronics manufacture in multiple Federal Circuit appeals of inter partes review decisions.
Other Trial and Appellate Litigation
- Tippins v. United States (Court of Federal Claims) — representing six Coast Guards veterans in class action challenging the government’s forced retirement of hundreds of senior enlisted personnel.
- Code v. McCarthy (D.C. Cir. 2020) — represented veteran challenging administrative board’s refusal to correct service record; argued appeal.
- In re Cipro I and II (California Superior Court) — represented generic drug manufacturer in class action raising antitrust claims based on settlement of patent case.
- Disability Rights New Jersey, Inc. v. Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Human Services (3d Cir. 2014) — Represented N.J. protection and advocacy system for persons with disabilities in landmark appeal involving American with Disabilities Act and Due Process challenges to a New Jersey policy for forcible medication of involuntarily committed patients in state hospitals; argued appeal.
- United States v. Mason (4th Cir. 2014) — Represented federal habeas petitioner; argued appeal.
- Robertson v. Shinseki (Fed. Cir. 2013) — Represented veteran in an appeal concerning a Presidential Pardon; argued appeal.
- Heino v. Shinseki (Fed. Cir. 2012) — Represented veteran in challenge to VA regulation concerning medication copayments; argued appeal.
- Lambert v. Johnson (4th Cir. 2010) — Represented federal habeas petitioner; obtained reversal of the district court decision denying client federal habeas relief; represented client in state-court appellate proceedings.
- Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger (6th Cir. 2009) — Represented federal habeas petitioner; argued appeal.
Clerk & Government Experience
Law ClerkHonorable Karen J. WilliamsUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2005–2007
CaptainJudge Advocate General's CorpsUnited States Army Reserve2008–2016
Prior Experience
Patent Examiner, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 1999–2005
Intern, Office of the House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, 2003
More
Recognition
Credentials
Admissions & Qualifications
- 2004, Virginia
- 2008, District of Columbia
- 2018, Admitted to Practice as a Solicitor of England and Wales
- Registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Courts
- Supreme Court of the United States
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
- United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals
Education
- The George Washington University Law SchoolJ.D.with Honors2004George Washington International Law Review
- Purdue UniversityB.S.1999