Andrew Radsch is an experienced trial lawyer in Ropes & Gray’s intellectual property litigation group, where he represents clients in complex patent and trade secret disputes in federal courts across the country, at the PTAB, and at the ITC. Andrew represents both plaintiffs and defendants and has litigated cases across a wide range of industries and technologies, including network security, wireless communications, cloud computing, streaming media, semiconductors, consumer electronics, medical devices, and consumer care products. In addition, Andrew regularly advises clients on offensive and defensive IP strategies and strategic portfolio enhancement, and represents clients in contested Section 1782 proceedings for obtaining discovery in aid of foreign proceedings.

Andrew has guided clients through all stages of litigation, including from pre-suit investigation and licensing negotiations through trial. He also has significant experience in post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where he has been counsel of record in more than 20 proceedings. 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, including multiple no-fee, walkaway settlements in both NPE and competitor suits.

Andrew also maintains an active pro bono practice. He frequently represents victims of domestic violence in obtaining restraining, child custody, and financial support orders, and refugees seeking asylum. Among his proudest achievements is obtaining asylum for a refugee of extreme political violence in Chad. After securing asylum, he went on to earn a business degree, started a family, and now is living the American dream as a successful businessman.

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

  • Carbyne Biometrics v. A Major Multinational Consumer Electronics Company (W.D. Tex.) – Defending a major multinational consumer electronics company in a six-patent suit concerning user authentication technologies.
  • Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for patent owner in an eight-patent infringement suit concerning 3D NAND semiconductor technology.
  • Aire Technologies v. A Major Multinational Consumer Electronics Company (W.D. Tex., CAFC) – Defending a major multinational consumer electronics company in a three-patent suit concerning NFC and mobile payment technologies.
  • Centripetal Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks (E.D. Va.; PTAB, CAFC) – Representing the world’s leading cybersecurity company in a 13-patent infringement suit relating to network security, as petitioner in more than 15 related PTAB proceedings, and in appeals from IPR proceedings.
  • Palo Alto Networks v. Packet Intelligence LLC (N.D. Cal.; PTAB; CAFC) – Representing Palo Alto Networks in a suit seeking declaratory judgment judgement of non-infringement and in related IPRs of five patents directed to network monitoring and analysis. Successfully achieved a stay of district court litigation upon institution of five inter partes reviews, which resulted in nearly 40 claims being held unpatentable. The PTAB had previously denied institution of IPRs on the same patents, which also had been successfully litigated against others. 
  • Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Micron Technology, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) – Represented IP Bridge in a four-patent suit relating to the fabrication and design of DRAM chips.The case settled shortly after a bench trial on Micron’s licensing defense, in which the district court rejected Micron’s defense and instead adopted all of IP Bridge’s proposed findings.Andrew served as lead trial counsel in the bench trial.
  • Virtuozzo v. Cloud Linux (D. Del.) – Represented Virtuozzo in a five-patent infringement relating to cloud computing, virtualization, and containerization technologies.Obtained a highly favorable settlement for our client before claim construction proceedings commenced.
  • Harris Corp. v. A Major Multinational Telecommunications Equipment Company (E.D. Tex.) – Successfully obtained a dismissal of all claims asserted against 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.; N.D. Cal.) – Represented Roku and several TCL entities in a multi-patent infringement lawsuit filed by Canon concerning video streaming and smart TV functionality and interfaces. Achieved a very favorable settlement that included a license for all of Roku’s TV partners.
  • 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) – Represented 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.) – Represented 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.
  • 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.

Areas of Practice