Andrew Radsch


  • 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


  • 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
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association – Vice-Chair, Mock Argument Committee
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association, Patent Litigation Committee
  • New York Intellectual Property Law Association
  • American Alpine Club
  • “George Hutchinson Committee Award,” Federal Circuit Bar Association (2019)
  • Super Lawyers - Rising Star in IP Litigation (2014-2015, 2017)
  • Empire State Counsel (2011)

Andrew Radsch


Andrew Radsch is an experienced trial lawyer in Ropes & Gray’s intellectual property litigation group, where he represents clients in business-critical patent and trade secret disputes in federal courts around the country and at the ITC. Andrew, who has represented plaintiffs and defendants in equal measure, has litigated cases across 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, Andrew regularly advises clients on offensive and defensive IP strategies.

Andrew has experience at all stages of litigation, from pre-suit investigation and licensing negotiations, through trial, where he has cross-examined both fact and expert witnesses. In addition to his first chair trial experience, Andrew has devised winning strategies and arguments that have resulted in early favorable resolution for his clients. He has substantial experience crafting winning briefs and arguing dispositive and non-dispositive motions.

In addition, Andrew represents clients in hotly contested Section 1782 proceedings for obtaining discovery in aid of foreign patent litigations.

Andrew maintains an active pro bono practice, where, for example, he represents victims of domestic violence in obtaining restraining, child custody, and financial support orders. Among his proudest achievements is obtaining asylum for a refugee of extreme political violence in Chad, who has since graduated university and started a family, and now is living the American dream.

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.


Technology, Media, and Telecommunications

  • A Major Multinational Cybersecurity Company v. Packet Intelligence LLC (N.D. Cal.) – Representing one of the world’s leading cybersecurity companies in an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of five patents directed to network monitoring and analysis, which patents had been litigated through trial against others in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Harris Corp. v. A Major Multinational Telecommunications Equipment Company (E.D. Tex.) – Defending a major multinational telecommunications equipment company in a seven-patent suit involving ad hoc wireless networks, network security, and encryption technologies. 
  • Canon, Inc. v. TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) – Defending TCL in a five-patent suit relating to smart TV functionality and interfaces. 
  • Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Ltd et al. (E.D. Tex.) –  Represented IP Bridge in a six-patent suit involving semiconductor fabrication 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. That summary judgment ruling in favor of IP Bridge was a “Top 20” most popular court ruling in Docket Navigator’s Docket Report for 2017.
  • TiVo/Rovi v. Comcast et al. (S.D.N.Y. / ITC  (337-TA-1001)) – Representing TiVo/Rovi in parallel district court and ITC patent infringement proceedings involving interactive program guides and related hardware and software. In the ITC proceeding, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s finding of a violation of Section 337 and issued a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease & Desist Order against Comcast and its set-top box suppliers. 
  • Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Intel Corp. (E.D. Tex.) – Representing IP Bridge in a nine-patent suit involving semiconductor fabrication technology. Obtained very favorable settlement for client on eve of expert discovery.
  • Penovia LLC v. A Leading Global Information Technology Company (E.D. Tex.) – Represented a leading global information technology company in a patent infringement suit related to office machine monitoring systems and obtained extremely favorable settlement before answering complaint by identifying invalidity arguments not previously raised.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Representing StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. in district court actions in the Central District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia involving the assertion of its patents relating to out-of-band authentication techniques and systems against its competitors.
  • Agranat Inc. v. A Leading Global Information Technology Company (C.D. Cal.) – 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.
  • 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.

Life Sciences & Medical Devices

  • 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. 
  • 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. 
  • 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.
  • Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals v. Baxter Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals v. Nektar Therapeutics (N.D. Cal.; N.D. Ill.) – 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.
  • Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC (D. Mass.) – Represented Abiomed in a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of non-infringement relating to Abiomed’s flagship Impella® heart pumps.
  • Abiomed, Inc. v. Thoratec LLC (N.D. Cal.) – Represented Abiomed in seeking discovery in aid of foreign litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
  • 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
  • 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.



  • 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
Cookie Settings