Photo of Philip P. Mann

Philip P. Mann

Subscribe to Philip P. Mann's Posts

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.

Follow:Read more about Philip P. MannPhilip P.'s Linkedin Profile

Seems Intel’s chief patent counsel David Simon has low regard for us unworthy types who have the temerity to think patents might protect smaller players too. At least that’s the message that comes across loud and clear from his comments in today’s Law.com article entitled, “Simon Says Intel Is Moving Toward Solos, Small Firms.”

In all honesty, the title was intriguing and I had to look. Could it be that a corporate giant such as Intel might actually notice that there are good lawyers in this country and that not all of them are in huge firms?
Continue Reading Intel Patent Chief Has “No Use” For Small Patent Holders

I’ve repeatedly stressed that, for patent plaintiffs, two issues are paramount in any patent infringement action. First, is there infringement? Second, what are the damages? Although these are fairly simple questions, I’m amazed at the number of patent plaintiffs who apparently forget these simple matters while heatedly pursuing their claims.

Today the Federal Circuit sent a gentle (?) reminder that plaintiffs claiming patent infringement really ought to provide some evidence of infringement if they hope to win. While I honestly believe the Court’s decision might have been prompted by what I sense is an increasingly hostile attitude by the Court toward patents in general, there are still some important lessons for us in this case. We’d be wise to listen.
Continue Reading A “Reminder” From The Federal Circuit: It Pays To Support Your Case With Actual Evidence Of Infringement

There’s no shortage of people who think the patent system is unfair, broken and an impediment to progress. An article I came across earlier today is a good example of what’s commonly heard and highlights many of the misperceptions surrounding patents, patent owners and patent lawsuits.

The point is made, for example, that, “A new industry of companies collecting patents with the sole purpose of suing others for money has formed in the past years.” Hmmm…sounds pretty bad doesn’t it? Companies formed for the sole purpose of suing others? For money? In America?
Continue Reading Patent Holding Companies Unfairly Trashed

A while back I slammed Sun Microsystem’s President and CEO Jonathan Schwartz for calling those of us who enforce patents “spurious litigators.” Well, an article I came across today suggests Sun may now be ready and willing to do the right thing. At least that’s the sense I get from hearing Sun’s recent statement regarding patents, patent lawsuits and the actions Sun might take in the future.
Continue Reading Sun’s Patent Lawsuit Policy: Good News for Patent Owners and Trial Counsel?

In his “Trademark Blog,” noted trademark attorney Martin Schwimmer asks, “Why Are The Big Patent Firms Disappearing?” As he points out, many of the largest and oldest patent firms, which “have been competently handling the largest, most complex patent litigations, since forever,” are disappearing, either by merging with large general firms or by shutting their doors altogether. Why is this? Why, he asks, do clients accept the higher fees that almost always result?

Well, I’m a bit biased but think I can shed some light on these excellent questions.
Continue Reading The Future of Big Patent Law Firms

The questions often come up. Why should a lawyer take a case on a contingency? Why should a client seek or agree to a contingent fee arrangement? Don’t contingency cases promote frivolous litigation? Isn’t this just a form of ambulance chasing?

To those who look down on the contingency fee lawyer I ask, “are you willing to risk your time and effort for your client?” (If your answer is “yes, but only at $500/hour,” I consider that a “no.”) The fact is contingency fee arrangements have a proud and honorable place in legal practice. Often, they are the only way individuals and smaller companies can actually gain access to the courts and legal system their taxes support.
Continue Reading Why Contingent Fees?

A welcome treat for most patent litigators is the chance to handle a “design patent” case. These cases don’t appear too often, but when they do, they’re invariably interesting. Today’s Federal Circuit decision in Bernhardt, L.L.C. v. Collezione Europa USA deals with this fascinating subject.

On the surface, design patents seem quite simple. Unlike their far more common “utility patent” brethren, design patents do not protect the functional features of an invention. Quite the contrary, they protect only the “ornamental features” of a product. Basically, this means that the appearance of a product can be protected with a design patent – provided the appearance is new, unobvious and not otherwise subject to any of the various pitfalls that delight defense attorneys while dashing the dreams of patentees and their counsel.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Evidentiary Standard for Proving Design Patent Infringement