Ben Hattenbach’s practice is focused on intellectual property litigation and counseling, with a particular emphasis on the trial of complex patent infringement matters. He has served as a member of the firm's Executive Committee for more than a decade, and is vice chair of the Litigation practice.

While representing patent holders, Ben has obtained more than six billion dollars in judgments and settlements, including the largest judgment in the history of our patent system. In addition, on multiple occasions he has represented patent litigation defendants who succeeded in turning the tables and recovering hundreds of millions of dollars from the plaintiffs that had sued them.

For 10 years, the Daily Journal has named Ben one of the top 75 intellectual property litigators in California. He was recognized by The American Lawyer as a “Litigator of the Week” in 2021, and by Best Lawyers as the Los Angeles Technology Law “Lawyer of the Year” for 2022 and 2024. 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), and “a tactically clever lawyer who thinks 15 moves ahead” (IAM 1000). 

Ben represents clients of all sizes in intellectual property-related disputes before federal and state courts, as well as the U.S. International Trade Commission and arbitration panels. A registered patent attorney, he also regularly litigates contested proceedings, such as inter partes reviews, before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On the transactional and counseling side, Ben provides strategic guidance regarding patent portfolio management, licensing and acquisitions. In his spare time, Ben is an internationally published landscape photographer who enjoys exploring remote wilderness areas.

Experience

  • VLSI Technology v. Intel (W.D. Tex.). Secured a $948 million jury verdict, plus running royalties, for VLSI in this suit regarding patented innovations used to provide improved performance and scalability in server microprocessors.
  • VLSI Technology v. Intel (W.D. Tex.). Obtained a $2.3 billion judgment for VLSI in this litigation involving two patents on microprocessor architecture technology used to reduce power consumption and improve performance in nearly a billion products.
  • WesternGeco v. Petroleum Geo-Services (S.D. Tex.). Represented Petroleum Geo-Services in 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.). Represented Synaptics in a matter involving patent, trade secret and copyright claims against fingerprint sensors used in smartphones.
  • Invensas v. Renesas (D. Del.). Represented Invensas in a multi-patent infringement action focused on semiconductor package substrate architectures having segmented voltage supply planes and reduced signal degradation.
  • Intel v. Future Link Systems (D. Del.). Represented Future Link Systems in a 17-patent case involving interconnect architectures, thermal monitoring systems, security circuitry and performance optimization within several hundred billion dollars of microprocessors and chipsets.
  • Novellus Systems v. Applied Materials (N.D. Cal.). Represented Novellus Systems in 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.). Represented Rockstar Consortium in 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.). Represented Diodes in 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.). Represented Intellectual Ventures in 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.). Represented Interactive Data in 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.). Represented Tessera in 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.). Represented Santarus in a pharmaceutical patent litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act involving an immediate-release proton pump inhibitor.
  • Raychem v. ECI Telecom (I.T.C.). Represented ECI Telecom in 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.). Represented Tessera in 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.). Represented Zone Labs in 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.). Represented AG Associates in a patent infringement case concerning rapid thermal processing and chemical vapor deposition technology for semiconductor fabrication.
  • ECI Telecom v. Amati Communications (Cal. Sup. Ct.). Represented ECI Telecom in 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.). Represented MGI Software in 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.). Represented Hewlett Packard in 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.). Represented McGhan Medical in a patent litigation involving techniques for manufacturing medical implants.
  • Tessera v. Micron and Infineon (E.D. Tex.). Represented Tessera in 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.). Represented Macrovision in a patent case concerning signal processing techniques used to prevent copying of entertainment content.
  • Unova v. Compaq Computer (C.D. Cal., S.D. Tex.). Represented Compaq Computer in patent infringement actions relating to smart batteries, removable disk drives and computer architecture.
  • Affymetrix v. Incyte Genomics (N.D. Cal.). Represented Affymetrix in a patent litigation matter involving DNA array technology, genetic analysis and an appeal of a patent interference decision.
  • Pitney Bowes v. Stamps.com (D. Del., E.D. Tex.). Represented Stamps.com in a series of four related patent litigation cases involving encryption of postage indicia and networked systems for transmission of postage over the Internet.

News

Honors & Awards

  • Selected to the inaugural edition of The Lawdragon 500 Leading Global IP Lawyers list (2025)
  • Selected as the Technology Law “Lawyer of the Year” for Los Angeles by Best Lawyers (2022, 2024)
  • Named one of the 75 Top IP Litigators in California by the Daily Journal (2010-2016, 2018, 2021-2022)
  • Recognized as a leading lawyer by Chambers USA, Managing Intellectual Property, Super Lawyers, Intellectual Asset Management 1000, Best Lawyers in America and The Legal 500
  • Recognized as a “Litigator of the Week” by The American Lawyer (2021)
  • Received a Distinguished Writing Award from the Burton Awards for his Stanford Technology Law Review article, “Patents In An Era Of Infinite Monkeys And Artificial Intelligence” (2016)

Publications

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

  • "Patent Prosecution Pitfalls: Perspectives From The Trenches Of Litigation," 92 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 340 (2010)
  • "Bilski v. Kappos: A Divided Court Narrowly Reaffirms Patentability of Business Methods," Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal (2010)
  • "The Changing Face Of Patent Law: Globalization Meets Legislative and Judicial Activism," Understanding Patent Reform Implications (2009)
  • "Chickens, Eggs And Other Impediments To Escalating Reliance On Dictionaries In Patent Claim Construction," 85 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 181 (2003)
  • "On Illuminating Black Holes In Patent Disclosures: Toward A Structured Approach To Identifying Omitted Elements Under The Written Description Requirement Of Patent Law," 38 Hous. L. Rev. 1195 (2001)
  • "Godzilla's Footprint: What We Have Learned About Markman Hearings," Computer Law Association (1998)
  • "GATT TRIPs And The Small American Inventor," 10:1 Intell. Prop. J. 61 (1995)

Speaking Engagements

  • Ben’s recent speaking engagements on patent law and litigation topics include conferences put on by the U.S. 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.
  • Ben 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.

Education

University of California, Berkeley School of Law (J.D., 1996); Order of the Coif; Executive editor, Berkeley Technology Law Journal

Harvey Mudd College (Master of Engineering, with distinction, 1993)

Harvey Mudd College (B.S., Engineering, with distinction, 1992)

Admissions

  • California, 1996
  • U.S. District Court for the Central, Northern and Southern Districts of California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Federal Circuits
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • U.S. Supreme Court
Jump to Page
Close