Ben Hattenbach is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Irell & Manella LLP, where he serves as a member of the firm's Executive Committee and Vice Chair of the firm’s Litigation Group. His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and counseling, with particular emphasis on the trial of patent infringement matters.

For seven consecutive years, the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journals named Mr. Hattenbach one of the top 75 intellectual property litigators in California. He has been described as "an exceptionally talented patent litigator who fully dedicates himself to his clients," "fantastically smart" and "super-bright, creative and tenacious" (Chambers USA), "amazing" (The Legal 500), and "just fantastic" and "a tactically clever lawyer who thinks 15 moves ahead" (IAM 1000). While representing patent holders during one span of just eight months, he obtained five separate nine-figure verdicts and settlements, four of which had a value exceeding $200 million. In addition, on multiple occasions he has represented patent litigation defendants who succeeded in turning the tables and recovering nine-figure amounts from the plaintiffs who had sued them.

Mr. Hattenbach has litigated patent disputes before numerous federal and state courts, as well as the International Trade Commission and arbitration panels. He also regularly litigates contested proceedings, such as inter partes reviews, before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On the transactional and counseling side, he provides strategic guidance regarding patent portfolio management, licensing and acquisitions. He is a registered patent attorney.

Mr. Hattenbach received bachelor's and master's degrees in Engineering, both with distinction, from Harvey Mudd College in 1992 and 1993, respectively. He received his J.D. degree from the University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall) in 1996, where he was admitted to the Order of the Coif and served as executive editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal.

In his spare time Mr. Hattenbach is an internationally published landscape photographer who enjoys exploring remote wilderness areas.

Read More

Representative Matters

Representative litigation matters in which Mr. Hattenbach has served as counsel (client bolded) include:

  • Intel v. Future Link Systems (D. Del.), a seventeen patent case involving interconnect architectures, thermal monitoring systems, security circuitry and performance optimization within several hundred billion dollars of microprocessors and chipsets.

  • WesternGeco v. Petroleum Geo-Services (S.D. Tex.), two multi-patent actions involving seismic exploration technology for acquiring and processing data used to map offshore oil and gas reservoirs.

  • Amkor v. Synaptics (D. Del.), a matter involving patent, trade secret and copyright claims against fingerprint sensors used in smartphones.

  • Invensas v. Renesas (D. Del.), a multi-patent infringement action focused on semiconductor package substrate architectures having segmented voltage supply planes and reduced signal degradation.

  • Novellus Systems v. Applied Materials (N.D. Cal.), a series of patent infringement cases involving an array of semiconductor processing techniques and equipment including plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition, multi-stage vacuums and magnetron sputtering.
  • Rockstar Consortium v. Cisco Systems, Time Warner Cable et al. (E.D. Tex., D. Del.), a set of infringement and declaratory relief actions involving dozens of telecommunications patents acquired by five of the world’s largest technology companies from the estate of Nortel Networks.
  • Integrated Discrete Devices v. Diodes (D. Del.), a patent infringement matter involving techniques for fabricating semiconductor diodes having low forward conduction voltage drop and low reverse current leakage.
  • Intellectual Ventures v. Hynix, Elpida et al. (I.T.C., W.D. Wash.), a § 337 investigation in which five patents were asserted against a broad array of DRAM and flash memory circuitry.
  • Realtime Data v. Interactive Data et al. (E.D. Tex., S.D.N.Y.), a case involving patents on data compression and decompression algorithms allegedly used to provide financial market information in near real time with reduced bandwidth requirements.
  • Tessera v. Motorola et al. (I.T.C.), multiple § 337 investigations against more than two dozen respondents accused of infringing patents on semiconductor encapsulation techniques and compliant semiconductor packaging architectures.
  • Santarus v. Par (D. Del.), a pharmaceutical patent litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act involving an immediate-release proton pump inhibitor.
  • Raychem v. ECI Telecom (I.T.C.), a § 337 investigation concerning patents on high speed modem technology.
  • Tessera v. Amkor Technology (I.C.C., N.D. Cal., D. Del., Cal. Sup. Ct.), a series of arbitrations before a three judge panel from the International Chamber of Commerce, and various satellite cases, involving royalties due under an agreement licensing both patented and unpatented semiconductor packaging technology.
  • Zone Labs v. Sygate (N.D. Cal.), a patent infringement matter concerning software for centralized management of distributed firewalls for intelligently restricting Internet access, followed by a contract action to enforce a patent license.
  • Applied Materials v. AG Associates (N.D. Cal.), a patent infringement case concerning rapid thermal processing and chemical vapor deposition technology for semiconductor fabrication.
  • ECI Telecom v. Amati Communications (Cal. Sup. Ct.), a state court suit involving contractual ownership claims to patents on optimization algorithms used in DSL communication and related trade secret misappropriation causes of action.
  • MGI Software v. Zoomify (N.D. Cal.), a patent and trademark infringement dispute relating to software for optimizing delivery of high resolution digital imagery over the Internet.
  • Intergraph v. Hewlett Packard (E.D. Tex.), a series of patent infringement actions involving microprocessor cache memory management technology and a variety of other inventions related to high performance computer architecture.
  • Medical Products Development v. McGhan Medical (C.D. Cal.), a patent litigation involving techniques for manufacturing medical implants.
  • Tessera v. Micron and Infineon (E.D. Tex.), a patent case involving foundational semiconductor packaging technologies now broadly licensed by manufacturers of small-format ball grid array products, including the majority of the DRAM industry.
  • Macrovision v. Dwight Cavendish Labs (N.D. Cal.), a patent case concerning signal processing techniques used to prevent copying of entertainment content.
  • Unova v. Compaq Computer (C.D. Cal., S.D. Tex.), patent infringement actions relating to smart batteries, removable disk drives and computer architecture.
  • Affymetrix v. Incyte Genomics (N.D. Cal.), a patent litigation matter involving DNA array technology, genetic analysis and an appeal of a patent interference decision.
  • Pitney Bowes v. (D. Del., E.D. Tex.), a series of four related patent litigation cases involving encryption of postage indicia and networked systems for transmission of postage over the Internet.
View More
View More


Mr. Hattenbach frequently speaks and writes about patent law and practice. His publications include:

View More

Seminars & Speaking Engagements

  • Mr. Hattenbach's recent speaking engagements on patent law and litigation topics include conferences put on by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, China's State Intellectual Property Office, the AIPLA, West Legalworks, Stanford Law School, John Marshall Law School, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, ReedLogic, IP Counsel Forum and the IEEE.
  • Mr. Hattenbach has also served on the planning committees for the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology's Advanced Patent Law Institute and the University of Southern California Law School's Intellectual Property Institute, as well as the executive committee of the intellectual property section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association.
View More
View More
View More

Bar & Court Admissions

  • 1996, California
  • U.S. District Court, Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit and Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office