Photo of Philip P. Mann

Philip P. Mann is a trial lawyer with over twenty years experience litigating patent, trademark, trade secret, and other intellectual property matters throughout the country.

Mann's trial work has taken him to various federal and state courts where he's tried both cases to the court (a judge) as well as before juries. In addition to trial court work, Mann has performed appellate work before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Mann began his legal career in Chicago and Milwaukee before heading to Seattle where some of America's most innovative companies were developing new technologies at breakneck speed. Before founding his own firm, he was a member of the Seattle Intellectual Property Law Firm, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness.

Mann is an "AV" rated lawyer by Martindale Hubbell, indicative that he has reached the height of professional excellence and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.

He holds a degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois (Urbana) and received his law degree from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, Missouri. He is admitted to practice in the States of Illinois and Washington, as well as before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and in various courts around the country.

An interesting case from the Federal Circuit today. What’s unusual is that the Federal Circuit actually upheld a finding of design patent infringement. What’s more unusual is that the court upheld a monetary award in favor of the design patent owner. While I haven’t checked this rigorously, (and I’m sure someone will let me know if I’m wrong) it’s the first time in my recent memory they have done so. Let’s hope it signals a trend.

The case is instructive for several reasons.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Upholds Design Patent Infringement Award

MSNBC reports that the Eastern District of Texas may be the latest “rocket docket” for patent cases in the U.S. The Eastern District of Virginia, which has long been favored by patent plaintiffs for its comparatively fast track to trial, has apparently been getting bogged down in recent days. (I guess nothing lasts forever.) For

Those who don’t deal with the patent system on a regular basis are often surprised to learn that the morality, social utility and even legality of an invention don’t enter into the question of whether it is patentable. Thus, patents are routinely granted on ideas that would certainly raise eyebrows among most decent people if actually put into practice. I was reminded of this while reading the decision handed down by the Federal Circuit today in Matthew Stevens v. Tech International, Inc.
Continue Reading Fill’er Up!

A while back, I criticized the Federal Circuit for seemingly going out of its way to find implied, narrowing limitations in otherwise broad claims. While it’s too early to break out the champagne, the Court’s decision last week in Anheuser-Busch v. Crown Cork & Seal suggests that common sense and plain English still play some role in the dark and mysterious art of construing patent claims. In what I hope is a refreshing indication of things to come, the sober Court demonstrated it isn’t going to swallow every narrowing claim construction argument that comes along, even if brought to you by your friends at Budweiser.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Says, “Hold Your Horses, Anheuser, THIS Bud’s For You”