Robert C. Mattson
Partner
Tel (703) 412-6466

Robert C. Mattson

Partner

ROBERT (ROB) C. MATTSON, a partner in the firm's Litigation, Electrical, and Mechanical practice groups, conducts all types of intellectual property counseling and litigation for both domestic and foreign companies. The majority of his work is for high-tech and telecommunications companies as well as entities that rely heavily on standards-based technologies or computer-controlled manufacturing facilities.

A skilled IP litigation attorney, he argues cases involving such diverse technologies as embedded systems, Internet and e-business software, automotive technologies, semiconductor memories, videoconferencing, wireless LAN protocols, and sporting goods. As lead or local counsel, Mr. Mattson brings cases in the Federal Circuit and district courts throughout the country, as well as before the International Trade Commission.

Mr. Mattson also conducts post-grant proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). He represents clients in reexaminations, challenging patents at the USPTO as an alternative to litigation. He also assists clients in the strategic planning and management of their patent portfolios.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Mattson served as a Patent Examiner at the USPTO where he specialized in speech-signal processing, a complex technology impacting multiple industries.

Mr. Mattson speaks regularly on claim construction and willful infringement and has lectured before the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich and in Japan. Additionally, he actively engages in the pro bono representation of clients seeking civil protective orders and the representation of criminal defendants.

 

Representative Matters

Represented defendant Stork Townsend as local counsel in a patent infringement action involving the control of sausage-making machines. Settled on favorable terms. F.R. Drake v. Stork Townsend, 09-cv-791 (E.D. Va. 2009).

Represented defendant Tandberg as lead counsel in a patent-infringement action involving encoding and decoding of video signals in videoconferencing equipment. Won dismissal of lawsuit in favor of Tandberg. Multimedia Patent Trust v. Tandberg, 09-cv-1377 (S.D. Cal. 2009).

Represented plaintiff Tandberg as lead counsel in a patent and trademark infringement action involving videoconferencing equipment. Settled on favorable terms. Tandberg Telecom v. Polycom, 08-cv-83 (E.D. Va. 2008.).

Represented defendant Buffalo on appeal to the Federal Circuit in a patent infringement action involving wireless LAN technology. Won remand as reported at 542 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Settled on favorable terms during a jury trial. CSIRO v. Buffalo, 05-cv-53 (E.D. Tex. 2005).

Represented plaintiff Ricoh in patent infringement action involving toner containers for photocopiers, fax machines, and printers. Won summary judgment of patent infringement and validity as reported at 380 F. Supp.2d 418 (D. N.J. 2005). Subsequently won summary judgment of enforceability, and the case settled on favorable terms just prior to a jury trial. Ricoh v. Katun Corp., 03-cv-2612 (D. N.J. 2003).

Lack of Opinion Results in Enhanced Damages
Friday, December 02, 2011

In an earlier post commenting on the Federal Circuit decision in Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., we observed that a willful infringer’s failure to obtain advice of counsel prior to litigation can...

Court Points Out That Opinion Counsel Was Not a U.S. Attorney
Friday, September 23, 2011

In a memorandum opinion issued September 16, 2011, a district court rejected an accused infringer’s argument that summary judgment of no willful infringement should be granted in its favor on the basis of its reliance on an opinion of counsel that there was no infringement. In denying the motion, U.S. District Judge Leonard P. Stark observed...

Failure to Obtain a Competent Infringement Opinion Before Filing Suit May Result in Litigation Misconduct and Sanctions
Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The Western District of North Carolina issued an opinion on July 14, 2011 ordering the plaintiff, Precision Links Incorporated, to pay attorneys’ fees and litigation costs to the defendants, USA Products Group, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., in part due to the plaintiff’s failure to obtain a “reasonable, comprehensive, and competent”...

Congress Proposes to Change Law Regarding Failure to Obtain Advice of Counsel
Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Both houses of Congress have passed their own versions of patent reform legislation (S.23 and H.R.

Failure to Obtain a Noninfringement Opinion May Result in Willful Infringement, Enhanced Damages
Wednesday, June 29, 2011

A Federal Circuit panel decision in Spectralytics v. Cordis held that the failure to obtain an exculpatory opinion of counsel before engaging in infringing activity may be considered in determining both the existence of willful infringement and whether to award enhanced damages.

Stay Pending Reexamination Denied Because Defendant Did Not Raise Invalidity Defense
Tuesday, June 22, 2010

When evaluating a request to stay litigation pending reexamination, district courts generally consider three factors: (1)...

Jury to Hear Evidence of Patent Reexamination Proceedings
Monday, June 21, 2010

Judge Cites Length of Patent Reexamination in Denying Stay
Thursday, June 17, 2010

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Florida cited to the PTO’s Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data in denying an accused infringer’s...

All Blogs