Andrew Radsch

Counsel

radsch-andrew-300
  • JD, Columbia University School of Law, 2006; Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar; Articles Editor, Columbia Human Rights Law Review
  • BA (History), Highest Honors, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2002; Phi Beta Kappa; Regents Scholar; Golden Key National Honor Society Award of Excellence

Qualifications

  • New York, 2007
  • California, 2015

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2013
  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 2017
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 2016
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, 2015
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 2011
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2008
  • Super Lawyers - Rising Star in IP Litigation (2014-2015, 2017)
  • Empire State Counsel (2011)

Andrew Radsch

Counsel

Andrew Radsch is an experienced trial lawyer in Ropes & Gray’s intellectual property litigation group, where he counsels clients on their most business-critical patent litigation and trade secret disputes, in both district courts and the ITC. Andrew, who has been selected by his peers as a Super Lawyers Rising Star in IP Litigation, has counseled companies in a wide range of industries and technologies, including computer software and hardware, consumer electronics, wireless communications, semiconductor manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer care products. In addition to his trial work, Andrew regularly advises companies on offensive and defensive IP strategies.

Andrew has experience at all stages of litigation, from pre-suit investigation and licensing negotiations, through trial and appeal. Andrew’s trial experience includes two week-long jury trials, and a 19-day bench trial. In addition to his first chair trial experience, Andrew has played a key role in developing and executing on case strategy and has substantial experience crafting winning briefs and arguing dispositive and non-dispositive motions.

In addition, Andrew has substantial experience in contested Section 1782 proceedings seeking discovery in aid of foreign patent litigations. 

Andrew also maintains an active pro bono practice. His matters include leading a team in obtaining a restraining order and child custody for a domestic violence victim after several hearings; obtaining asylum for a Chadian refugee from political violence; and assisting individual artists in protecting their intellectual property rights.

During law school, Andrew was an extern for the Honorable Deborah A. Batts at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Experience

  • Rovi v. Comcast et al. (E.D. Tex. / ITC) – Represent Rovi in district court and ITC actions involving interactive program guides and related hardware and software.
  • Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Ltd et al. (E.D. Tex.) –  Represented IP Bridge in in a six-patent suit involving semiconductors and microprocessors.  Obtained highly favorable settlement for IP Bridge just weeks before trial and following the Court’s denial of Broadcom’s summary judgment motion that sought to limit the scope of potential infringement and damages.
  • Medtronic MiniMed, Inc. v. Nova Biomedical Corp. et al. (C.D. Cal.): Represented Nova in a suit with allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unfair competition relating to blood glucose meters. After a three-week jury trial in Los Angeles federal court, the jury unanimously found for Nova on all counts. 
  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. A Major Japanese Consumer Electronics Company (D. Del.) – Represented a major Japanese electronics manufacturer in a multi-patent infringement litigation involving semiconductors and various features of digital cameras. Obtained highly favorable settlement shortly after the Court issued its Markman order.
  • Shelbyzyme LLC v. Genzyme Corp. (D. Del.) – Represented Genzyme in patent infringement action concerning Genzyme’s life-saving drug, Fabrazyme®. Obtained favorable settlement after a week-long jury trial and an order compelling Shelbyzyme to produce attorney-client privileged communications based on the crime fraud exception, and shortly before bench trial on Genzyme’s equitable defenses.
  • Agranat Inc. v. A Leading Global Information Technology Company: Represented a leading global information technology company in a patent infringement action involving embedded web server technology, obtaining highly favorable settlement immediately after obtaining damaging admissions during expert depositions.
  • Penovia LLC v. A Leading Global Information Technology Company (E.D. Tex.) – Represented a leading global information technology company in a patent litigation matter related to office machine monitoring systems and obtained extremely favorable settlement before answering complaint.
  • Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals v. Baxter Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals v. Nektar Therapeutics:  Represented Bayer in connection with discovery in aid of a German litigation under 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 concerning recombinant Factor VIII for hemophiliacs.  Successfully obtained substantial discovery, defeating numerous motions to quash and to limit discovery.
  • Clean Energy Management Solutions v. SmartThings, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – As litigation counsel for SmartThings, obtained early dismissal in an infringement suit on a patent asserted against “Internet of Things” products.
  • NuVasive, Inc. v. Cadwell Labs. (S.D. Cal.) – Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of client in patent suit relating to intraoperative monitoring equipment.
  • PerkinElmer v. Bruker Corp. (N.D. Cal.) – Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of client after successfully defeating defendant’s motion to dismiss based on claim and issue preclusion
  • AstraZeneca LP et al v. Watson Labs., Breath Ltd., Apotex Corp and Apotex Inc., and Sandoz, Inc. (D.N.J.) – Represented AstraZeneca in 19-day bench trial involving pediatric asthma drug, PULMICORT RESPULES®, and patents concerning methods of treatment and sterilized compositions.
  • Suzanne Jaffe Stillman v. Bayer HealthCare LLC, et al. (C.D. Cal.): Represented Bayer in a patent infringement action concerning dietary supplements containing fiber, water and “encapsulated” probiotics. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice all direct infringement claims after the court granted our motion to dismiss with prejudice all claims for indirect infringement.
  • LG Electronics, U.S.A., et al. v. Whirlpool Corp., et al. (D.N.J.): Represented LG in a multi-patent infringement suit related to various mechanical features of high-end refrigerators. The case was settled on favorable terms in September 2012.
  • Pall Corp. v. Entegris Inc. (E.D.N.Y.): Represented Entegris in a patent infringement suit related to structure and packaging of filters used in the manufacture of semiconductors. The case was favorably settled in January 2011.

Publications