Extranet Access  |  Contact Info  |  866.222.0112
When you're serious about intellectual property... UseBrinks

Charles M. McMahon

Practice Summary

Mr. McMahon counsels clients and litigates on their behalf in the areas of patent, trademark, copyright and unfair competition law. He has represented domestic and multinational clients in federal courts and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the International Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. He also prepares and prosecutes patent applications and assists clients in the negotiation and preparation of licensing agreements.

Mr. McMahon's work has involved a variety of technical areas, including vehicular transmission systems, wireless communications, solid-state electronics, encryption systems, digital imaging systems, electronic measurement devices, lithium batteries, software applications and online business-to-business exchange systems. He received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Notre Dame in 1996 and his J.D. from The George Washington University Law School in 1999. Prior to joining Brinks, Mr. McMahon was a Judicial Intern for the Honorable Randall R. Rader of the Federal Circuit.

Honors/Distinctions
  • Illinois Super Lawyers, Rising Stars, 2008-2010 
  • Executive Production Editor, AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 1998-1999
  • George Washington University School of Law Moot Court Board
  • President, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Student Chapter, University of Notre Dame
Representative Matters
View All
  • Bilski v. Doll, cert. granted, 77 U.S.L.W. 3656 (June 1, 2009) (No. 08-964). Mr. McMahon represented Accenture and Pitney Bowes Inc. as amici curiae on petition for certiorari arguing that Supreme Court precedent counsels a flexible approach to application of 35 U.S.C. § 101 for process patent eligibility. By contrast, the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation" test unnecessarily ties the process category of section 101 to one of the other categories of that section, such as the "machine'" or "manufacture" category and improperly anchors the standard in the 20th Century.
  • Energizer Holdings, Inc. and Eveready Battery Co. v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., No. 08-CV-431 (W.D. Wis., Oct. 30, 2008). Mr. McMahon represented plaintiffs Energizer Holdings, Inc. and Eveready Battery Co. in this case involving two patents for advanced primary battery technology. The Court granted a preliminary injunction to stop infringement of both patents by Spectrum's Rayovac lithium iron disulfide batteries.
  • Eaton Corporation v. ZF Friedrichshafen A.G. and ArvinMeritor, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2003-2008). Mr. McMahon represented defendants ZF Friedrichshafen A.G. and ArvinMeritor, Inc. in this patent infringement action involving heavy-duty truck transmission technology. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Mr. McMahon's clients on all issues.
  • In re Bilski, 2007-1130 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). Mr. McMahon represented the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) as amicus curiae before the Federal Circuit, arguing that the categories of section 101 should be applied broadly.
  • In the Matter of Certain Automated Mechanical Transmission Systems for Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Components Thereof (I.T.C. 2003-2006). Mr. McMahon represented respondents ZF Friedrichshafen A.G. and ArvinMeritor, Inc. in this section 337 patent infringement investigation at the International Trade Commission. In the violation phase of this investigation, the ITC granted respondents' motion for summary determination with respect to one of the six asserted patents. The ITC also terminated the investigation, at the patent owner's request, with respect to two other patents and several other claims of the remaining three patents. After a ten-day hearing on the merits, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of respondents on all but one claim of one patent. The respondents designed around the one remaining claim, and Mr. McMahon helped them work with Customs to ensure continuous importation of the redesigned product. When the patent owner brought an enforcement action, Mr. McMahon helped ZF and ArvinMeritor become the first respondents ever to defend successfully against such a proceeding at the ITC. As a result of this victory, ZF and ArvinMeritor have been able to continue the importation and sale of the redesigned product without interruption.
  • Energy Transportation Group v. Sonic Innovations, et. al. (D. Del. 2004-2007). In this multi-defendant litigation, Mr. McMahon represented hearing instrument providers Phonak and Unitron.
  • Lewis v. Yahoo!/Musicmatch, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2004-2005). Mr. McMahon represented Yahoo! and Musicmatch in this patent infringement action relating to on-line music services.
  • Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Sutcliffe, et al. (D. Ariz. 2004-2005). Mr. McMahon represented Chicago Reader Inc. in this patent infringement action relating to online dating and relationship matching services.
  • Yahoo!/Overture Services, Inc. v. FindWhat.com, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2002-present). Mr. McMahon represented Yahoo! and Overture in this patent infringement action involving paid search service technology. He also represented Yahoo! and Overture in a related action filed by FindWhat in the Southern District of California.
  • Yahoo!/Overture Services, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2002-2004). Mr. McMahon represented Yahoo! and Overture in this patent infringement action involving paid search service technology.
  • Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc. and Infinity Systems, Inc. (D. Mass. and Fed. Cir. 2001-2002). Mr. McMahon represented JBL and Infinity in an effort to stay execution of a judgment for infringement of a patent concurrently being reexamined by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.
  • Herman Miller, Inc. v. Stephen Peart and Ross Lovegrove (W.D. Mich. 2001). Mr. McMahon represented Herman Miller in an action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment of copyright non-infringement. He also represented Herman Miller in a related action filed by Peart and Lovegrove in the Central District of California. The parties settled both cases quickly and amicably.
  • Quintero Smith, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc. and Miller SQA, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2000-2001). Mr. McMahon defended Herman Miller and Miller SQA against charges of patent infringement, unfair competition and breach of contract. The Court granted Herman Miller and Miller SQA summary judgment of non-infringement on the patent claim. The parties promptly settled the remaining issues in the case.
  • Holcomb Healthcare Services Corp. and Amway Corp. v. Nikken, Inc. and Nu-Magnetics, Inc. (M.D. Tenn. 1999-2001). Mr. McMahon represented HHCS and Amway in a patent and unfair competition action involving therapeutic magnets. HHCS and Amway successfully opposed defendants' motions for summary judgment on the issues of infringement, validity, and unfair competition. The case settled on the eve of a jury trial.
Publications
  • Patents and the Federal Circuit, 2010 Supplement, co-author with Cynthia A. Homan
  • "Enforcing IP Rights in the ITC," co-author with Richard D. Watkins, World Intellectual Property Review 2007, at 48
  • "Digital Recordings And Copyrights In The New Millennium," co-author with William H. Frankel, presented at the Mid-Winter Institute of the American Intellection Property Law Association, Phoenix, Arizona, January 2002
  • "Jumping Over the Evidence Hurdle at Trial," co-author with Timothy Q. Delaney, National Law Journal, Aug. 7, 2000 at B11
  • "Intent To Commit Fraud On The USPTO: Is Mere Negligence Once Again Inequitable?" 27 AIPLA Q.J., 1999, pp. 49
Presentations
View All
  • “Patent Law Update,” Law Bulletin Seminars’ Annual Corporate Intellectual Property Law Conference, Co-Presenter with Chief Judge James Holderman, John Augustyn, and Edward Rice, Chicago, Illinois, May 25, 2010
  • "The Why's and How's of Amicus Briefing," Wisconsin Intellectual Property Law Association Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, March 11, 2010
  • "The New Law Under In re Bilski: Are Your Process Patents Now Invalid?," Utah Technology Council Industry Luncheon, Salt Lake City, Utah, December 3, 2008
  • "Electronic Discovery in Intellectual Property Litigation," IICLE 2nd Annual Intellectual Property Law Institute for Corporate Counsel, Chicago, Illinois, April 24, 2008
  • "IP Protection for Web Sites," IICLE Intellectual Property Law for Business Lawyers, Chicago, Illinois, November 29, 2007
  • "A Practical Guide to e-Discovery and The New Federal Rules," IICLE 1st Annual Intellectual Property Law Institute for Corporate Counsel, Northbrook, Illinois, April 13, 2007
  • "Clearance Opinions and Reliance on Advice of Counsel in the Aftermath of EchoStar," Recent Developments in IP Litigation, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione Seminar, Chicago, Illinois, September 2006
  • "Protection of Intellectual Property Rights," ATLAS–Taxation of Intellectual Property, Chicago, Illinois, November 14, 2005
  • "Custodial Centric Intensity Matrix: Applying the 'Key Players' Concept of Zubulake," Co-Presenter with Daniel L. Regard, San Francisco, California, April 7, 2005
  • "Protection of Intellectual Property Rights," ATLAS–Taxation of Intellectual Property, Chicago, Illinois, May 12, 2003
Memberships & Affiliations
  • American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago
  • Licensing Executives Society
  • Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers
Civic Activities
  • Cabrini Green Legal Aid Clinic
    Volunteers and conducts intake interviews of potential CGLA clients
Legal Experience
  • Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, Chicago, Illinois
    Shareholder, January 2006-Present
    Associate, September 1999-December 2005
    Summer Associate, May-July 1997
  • Fish & Richardson PC, Washington, D.C.
    Summer Associate, June 1998-August 1998
  • Kile & McIntyre LLP, Washington, D.C.
    Patent Specialist, August 1997-May 1998 and February-May 1997