Overview
Nathan Mammen is a partner in Kirkland’s Intellectual Property Practice Group. He has broad litigation experience with a particular focus on intellectual property trial and appellate litigation. He frequently leads teams in “bet-the-company” complex intellectual property matters. He has experience in diverse technologies such as agricultural equipment and digital agriculture technology, medical devices, radio-frequency identification, wireless communication, semiconductors, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals and mechanical devices.
He has successfully represented clients at all levels, from trial court or administrative boards through appeals, including at the United States Supreme Court. He has extensive experience in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Nathan is frequently involved in or consulted about matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 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.
Before 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. During his military service, 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
- AGI Suretrack LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc. (D. Neb.) — defending global leader in digital agriculture in a multi-patent case.
- Graco Inc. v. Carlisle Construction Materials, LLC (D. Del.) — representing innovating manufacturer of fluid application equipment in defending against a patent infringement claim and asserting antitrust counterclaims.
- 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.
- Certain Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) Products (ITC) — defended Kapsch TrafficCom in a multi-patent ITC action brought by competitor Amtech; achieved favorable resolution.
- 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 (ITC) — 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
- Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (S. Ct. 2023; Fed. Cir. 2021; Fed. Cir. 2017) — appellate counsel for major pharmaceutical manufacturers in landmark case involving antibody technology; achieved successful outcomes in two Federal Circuit appeals and before the Supreme Court.
- Intel Corporation v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG (Fed. Cir. 2023) — represented Intel in three separate appeals challenging decisions of Patent Trial and Appeal Board that had affirmed validity of patents asserted by PACT in litigation; argued one appeal and achieved successful outcomes in all three.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Other Trial and Appellate Litigation
- Tippins v. United States (Fed. Cir.; Court of Federal Claims) — lead trial and appellate counsel representing six decorated Coast Guards veterans in class action challenging the government’s forced retirement of them and hundreds of other senior enlisted personnel; trial court granted summary judgment to clients and certified class of 237 other veterans.
- Lian v. D’Amico (9th Cir. 2022) — successfully represented family on appeal challenging summary judgment order that had dismissed claims against state for negligent investigation that led to separation of family.
- Code v. McCarthy (D.C. Cir. 2020) — successfully represented veteran challenging administrative board’s refusal to correct service record; argued appeal and obtained reversal of judgment.
- 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.
- Argued numerous other cases in courts of appeals on behalf of veterans and indigent defendants.
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
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 Fifth 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 Armed Forces
- United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- United States Court of Federal Claims
- United States District Court for the District of Columbia
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- 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