Andrew N. Thomases
Andrew Thomases is co-head of the firm's technology, media & telecommunications group and a nationally-recognized, first-chair trial lawyer with over 20 years of experience litigating complex patent and trade secret cases in federal courts throughout the country, as well as before the International Trade Commission. He has achieved numerous successes for companies in the fields of computer technology, semiconductors, analog circuits, wireless technology and medical devices, among other areas.
Andrew recently served as lead counsel for flash memory chip maker Spansion in a large set of multi-patent litigations against its rival Macronix International. Andrew’s representation included four ITC investigations, three district court cases, eleven inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent Office, and coordination of multiple patent litigations in Germany. After two successful trials before the ITC, and after obtaining sanctions against Macronix, the litigations settled favorably for Spansion.
As a first-chair litigator, Andrew also obtained a complete defense decision at the ITC for Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc., a semiconductor device company, and supported that decision in two appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He was also a key member of a team that obtained a $57 million-plus jury verdict on behalf of medical device maker Medtronic Inc. – one of 2009’s largest plaintiff verdicts in California. He has extensive experience in many U.S. district courts, including the Eastern District of Texas, the Districts of California, and the District of Delaware.
Andrew has been recognized as a “leading lawyer” in patent litigation by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business and has been named among the “Top IP Litigators” in California by the Daily Journal. He has also been recognized by The Legal 500 (U.S.) for his record of successfully representing clients before the ITC.
- Spansion v. Macronix et al. (USITC, N.D. California, and E.D. Virginia) – Lead trial counsel for Spansion in a large set of multi-patent cases related to flash memory technology, including four investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission, three cases in the Federal courts in Virginia and the Northern District of California, and eleven inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Office. The dispute was successfully settled.
- Zipit v. BlackBerry (D. S. Carolina) – Representing BlackBerry in a four-patent suit filed by Zipit regarding wireless messaging and control of communications devices over a computer network.
- Preservation Technologies, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al. (C.D. California) – Represented Yahoo! Inc. in a six-patent suit filed by Preservation Technologies. Favorably settled.
- Medtronic, Inc. et al. v. AGA Medical Corporation (N.D. California) – Represented Medtronic in a multi-patent infringement dispute involving the material properties and structures relating to stents used in the cardiovascular system; obtained a $57 million-plus jury verdict on behalf of client.
- Medtronic, Inc. v. W.L. Gore (N.D. California) – Represented Medtronic in a patent infringement case asserting six separate patents relating to cardiovascular medical devices; favorably settled case for Medtronic.
- WIAV Networks, LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al (N.D. California) – Represented Hewlett-Packard in a patent litigation involving wireless networking technology; obtained favorable settlement after successful claim construction ruling.
- Adiscov v. FTI Consulting et al. (E.D. Virginia) – Represented FTI Consulting in a patent suit regarding electronic discovery tools; achieved dismissal of the complaint and a favorable settlement.
- Linear v. Advanced Analogic Technologies Inc. (USITC and the Federal Circuit) – Represented AATI in several ITC trials and appeals before the Federal Circuit involving switching voltage regulators. Settled after successful trials and appeals.
- Quoted, “Federal Circuit Violates Teva Standard, SCOTUS Chooses Not to Enforce It,” InsideCounsel (November 20, 2015)
- Quoted, “ClearCorrect Ruling Keeps ITC From Policing Web Privacy,” Law360 (November 11, 2015) (subscription required)
- Quoted, “Federal Circuit Limits ITC Jurisdiction Over Digital Goods,” Managing Intellectual Property Magazine (November 11, 2015) (subscription required)
- Co-author, “Revisiting claim construction after the Supreme Court’s decision in Teva v. Sandoz,” InsideCounsel (May 11, 2015)
- “Court Clarifies FRAND Rate Standards,” The Recorder (May 10, 2013)
- “What The Motorola FRAND Ruling Means For Your Company,”Law360 (May 2, 2013)
- “The ITC’s Pilot Mediation Program for 337 Investigations: A Primer,” IP Law & Business (October 20, 2009)
- “A Potential Gap in the ITC’s Authority: Method of Use Claims,” Landslide Vol. 1 No. 6 (July/August 2009)
- “The Impact of Kyocera v. ITC,” Law Journal Newsletters (January 2009)
- “The Real World Impact of Recent Supreme Court Patent Decisions,” Association of Corporate Counsel - Bay Area Chapter (May 12-13, 2015)
- “Judicial and Regulatory Rulings Affecting Value,” PLI conference on “Building a Law Department IP Licensing Program: Driving Shareholder Value,” (September 20, 2013)
- “Enforcement of Standard-Essential Patents,” Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Bench and Bar Conference (June 21, 2013)
- “Litigating Against Non-Practicing Entities,” PLI’s Advanced Patent Law Institute (March 19, 2013)
- “Essential Questions about Standard-Essential Patents,” Berkeley and Stanford Law Schools’ Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute (December 6, 2012)
- National Taiwan University College of Law/Industrial Technology Research Institute IP Conference on Non-Practicing Entities (October 30-31, 2012)
- “RAND in the Courts,” Berkeley Center for Law and Technology seminar (October 26, 2012)
- “The New Meaning of ‘Domestic Industry’ and Why NPEs Are Filing in the ITC,” Silicon Valley Association of General Counsel “All Hands” meeting (December 7, 2011)