This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Ben Hattenbach

By Pat Broderick | Apr. 19, 2012

Intellectual Property

Apr. 19, 2012

Ben Hattenbach

See more on Ben Hattenbach

Irell & Manella LLP Los Angeles



Hattenbach found himself in a labyrinth of lawyers in a patent enforcement litigation that ended up before the International Trade Commission.


He was co-lead counsel for plaintiff Tessera in a case that began in 2007 when the company sued six electronics industry heavyweights for patent infringement.


In May 2009, after an appeal, the commission reversed an adverse administrative law judge decision and entered a final determination finding Tessera's patents valid and infringed by a number of industry leaders, including Motorola, Qualcomm, Freescale, Spansion and STMicroelectronics. They were barred from importing or selling their infringing products in the United States.


"There were over 50 lawyers in the courtroom at any given time, and there might well have been closer to 100," he recalled. "There were so many lawyers, that occasionally it was difficult to remember which lawyers were representing which defendants. There was a fair amount of chaos."


But Hattenbach kept to his strategy.


"I think it's keeping your eye on your ultimate objectives and not being distracted by ancillary chaos that is not directed to the core of the case," he said. "This is essential in circumstances like that."


Hattenbach also represented Diodes Inc., a semiconductor designer and manufacturer, in a suit alleging patent infringement by the company's super barrier rectifier diodes.


The case involved semiconductor fabrication technology and in particular, high-performance diodes that are used in electronic circuitry. Integrated Discrete Devices LLC v. Diodes Inc., 08-888-GMS (D. Del.).


During the claim construction phase, the court adopted all of Diodes' proposed constructions, and Integrated Discrete Devices then dismissed its claims with prejudice.


"It was a total knockout victory," Hattenbach said.

- PAT BRODERICK

<!-- Ben Hattenbach -->

#309494

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com