ATTORNEYS DETAIL

Andrew Dallmann’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation. He is a registered patent attorney with nearly twenty years of litigation experience and has worked on matters in a variety of industries, including electronics, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, rocket launch technology, interactive television, integrated circuit testing and satellite broadcasting systems. Andrew has successfully argued before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Vinyl Visions, LLC v. Craig A. Oehme, et. al., Case No. 2015-1273, in which the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement. Andrew has also successfully asserted invalidity in multiple inter partes review and ex parte reexamination proceedings.

While in law school, Andrew was also the Associate Director of the Chicago-Kent College of Law Intellectual Property Department where he managed the day-to-day operations of the department and assisted in the drafting of “Patent Litigation and Strategy” by Judges Moore and Michel, and Raphael Lupo. Andrew received multiple American Jurisprudence awards including in patent law.

Before practicing law, Andrew worked for more than eight years as a geophysicist in mineral and oil exploration; managing exploration field crews from northern Canada to west Africa. Andrew also consulted on environmental and OSHA compliance issues, and developed the field screening technique that became a major car company standard when converting from in-ground hydraulic lifts to above-ground electric lifts.

Andrew was named a “Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Star” by Law & Politics Magazine.

Education

• J.D., Chicago-Kent School of Law, 2000
• B.S., University of Western Ontario, 1989

Bar Admissions

• State Bar of California
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
• Central, Eastern, Southern and Northern Districts of California

Articles

• IP Frontline: Is A 50,000 Page Expert Report ‘TMI’? California Court Says “No”
• Evidence Related to Patent Prosecution History and Reexamination Not Admissible In Defense of Willful Infringement
• District Court Holds “It is an Abuse of Discretion to Permit a Witness to Testify as an Expert on the Issue of Non-infringement or Invalidity Unless that Witness is Qualified as an Expert in the Pertinent Art”
• Whether To Stay A District Court Patent Infringement Action In Light Of A Reexamination Depends On “The Totality Of The Circumstances”