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

Robert C. Mattson

Partner

ROBERT (ROB) C. MATTSON, a partner in the firm's Post-Grant and Litigation practice groups, specializes in contested proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and district courts of the United States. The majority of his work is for high-tech and telecommunications companies, particularly companies that rely heavily on standards-based or standardized technologies.

A skilled IP litigation attorney, he argues cases involving such diverse technologies as embedded systems, cloud computing, automotive technologies, smartphones, communications protocols, robotics, and sporting goods. As lead or local counsel, Mr. Mattson represents clients in the Federal Circuit and district courts throughout the country, as well as before the International Trade Commission.

Mr. Mattson practices extensively in post-grant proceedings at the USPTO, including the new inter partes review trials. Most of his clients are involved in concurrent, high-stakes litigation and seek to challenge patents at the USPTO to supplement their overall litigation strategy.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Mattson served as a patent examiner at the USPTO where he specialized in speech-signal processing and artificial intelligence, complex technologies impacting multiple industries. He regularly returns to the USPTO as a member of The Pauline Newman IP American Inn of Court, which is hosted on the Alexandria, Virginia campus.

Mr. Mattson speaks regularly on the use of post-grant proceedings as a litigation strategy. He was formerly an adjunct professor for the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich and continues to lecture domestic and international audiences on a variety of litigation-related topics. Additionally, he actively engages in the pro bono representation of defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in coordination with the Federal Public Defender Office.

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