Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
  • Overview
  • Experience
  • Insights
  • Recognition

About Andrew

Andrew Kopsidas, a principal in the Washington, D.C., office of Fish & Richardson P.C., leads and tries intellectual property cases and offers strategic counseling to clients.

A lead trial lawyer recognized for producing positive results for his clients, Andrew serves his clients by getting to know their business, developing creative and effective solutions, and conducting litigations with uncompromising efficiency. His clients are among the most prominent U.S., Korean, and European companies. He is described by one client as “a unique strategic mind with real courtroom chops.”

Andrew has handled patent and intellectual property matters in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. district courts in dozens of states, and arbitrations in a variety of forums. With a background in aerospace and electrical engineering, Andrew has litigated cases involving microprocessors, acoustic devices, DRAM and flash memory devices, mobile phones, telecommunications networks and standards, digital signal processing, internet applications, GPS devices, and various software, mechanical and chemical inventions. He regularly speaks, writes, and advises clients on trade secrets and litigation before the ITC.

Andrew is at the forefront of Fish’s ITC and trade secret practices. He has first-chaired ITC trials, litigated dozens of cases in that venue, and is a regular speaker on ITC practice and procedure, including the strategic use of ITC litigation in parallel with U.S. district court litigation. He has been recognized as a “Leading ITC Lawyer” by The Legal 500.

When he’s not helping clients achieve their business goals, Andrew takes pride in training junior lawyers and donating his time to pro bono causes. Andrew is an instructor for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (“NITA”) courses on trial and deposition skills. He also dedicates a significant portion of his time to matters for the Veterans Consortium, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and The Human Trafficking Legal Center. In 2019, The Human Trafficking Legal Center honored Fish with its “Litigation Firm of the Year” award for Andrew’s successful trial securing a victim of human trafficking a $1.5 million judgment—one of the largest awards ever achieved in this type of case.

Before going to law school, Andrew worked at NASA for approximately five years. During that time, he worked on several space shuttle missions as a flight controller and systems engineer.  He also worked as an aerospace design engineer at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., where he worked on the design of a small, chine-body drone aircraft that would have the radar cross-section of a full-sized aircraft to enemy radar.

ITC Leader, Fish Litigation Blog

Publications

INSIGHT: SCOTUS Decision on Computer Fraud Act Could Impact Trade Secrets, Bloomberg Law, July 7, 2020.

The ITC Punts on Whether the Presumption of Validity Applies to § 101 ChallengesFish Litigation Blog, April 7, 2016.

Judge Pender Allows Supplementation of Prior Art Record For Good CauseFish Litigation Blog, April 29, 2015.

ITC Says it Has the Power to Stop Infringing Transmissions of Digital MaterialsFish Litigation Blog, March 13, 2015.

Judge Essex Recommends General Exclusion Order for Counterfeit Loom KitsFish Litigation Blog, March 4, 2015.

Federal Circuit Judges Seem Divided During En Banc Argument in Suprema v. ITC, Fish Litigation Blog, February 10, 2015.

Judge Bullock Strikes Portions of Complainant’s Case For Inadequate Contentions and Failure to Produce Expert Test Results During DiscoveryFish Litigation Blog, February 5, 2015.

Second Thoughts on Spoliation Sanction: ITC to Review Final Initial Determination Imposing $1.9M SanctionFish Litigation Blog, January 28, 2015.

Is the ITC Taking a Closer Look at Standing?Fish Litigation Blog, January 16, 2015.

Recent Presentations

Litigating Non-Patent Claims at the ITC,” co-speaker, Fish Litigation Webinar (November 17, 2020).

“Trade Secret Practice in the U.S.,” Speaker (May 2020)

“The Section 101 Landscape,” Speaker (October 2019)

“Trade Secret Practice in the U.S.,” Speaker (November 2019)

“Patent Prosecution Tips from a Litigator,” Speaker (April 2019)

“Legal Challenges for Autonomous Vehicles,” Speaker (October 2018)

“Patent Litigation in the International Trade Commission,” Speaker (June 2018)

“Claim Drafting from a Litigation Relief Perspective,” Co-Speaker (March 2018)

“Enforcing Non-Patent Intellectual Property Rights at the ITC,” Co-Speaker (November 2017)

“Best Practices for Trade Secrets & Cybersecurity,” Co-Speaker (June 2017)

“The New Landscape for Trade Secrets in the U.S.,” Co-Speaker (October 2016)

“ITC Practice and Procedure,” Co-Speaker (October 2016)

“Patent Litigation in the International Trade Commission,” Speaker (June 2016)

Publications

The ITC Punts on Whether the Presumption of Validity Applies to § 101 Challenges, Fish Litigation Blog, April 7, 2016.

Judge Pender Allows Supplementation of Prior Art Record For Good Cause, Fish Litigation Blog, April 29, 2015.

ITC Says it Has the Power to Stop Infringing Transmissions of Digital Materials, Fish Litigation Blog, March 13, 2015.

Judge Essex Recommends General Exclusion Order for Counterfeit Loom Kits, Fish Litigation Blog, March 4, 2015.

Federal Circuit Judges Seem Divided During En Banc Argument in Suprema v. ITC, Fish Litigation Blog, February 10, 2015.

Judge Bullock Strikes Portions of Complainant’s Case For Inadequate Contentions and Failure to Produce Expert Test Results During Discovery, Fish Litigation Blog, February 5, 2015.

Second Thoughts on Spoliation Sanction: ITC to Review Final Initial Determination Imposing $1.9M Sanction, Fish Litigation Blog, January 28, 2015.

Is the ITC Taking a Closer Look at Standing?, Fish Litigation Blog, January 16, 2015.

U.S. District Court Cases

Bose Corp. v. Goldstein (D.Mass 2019) – Lead counsel for plaintiff Bose in action for trade secret misappropriation; secured permanent injunction.

Carl Zeiss v. Nikon Corp. (C.D.Cal. 2017) – Counsel for plaintiff Zeiss in action for patent infringement involving digital camera technology.

Carl Zeiss v. Nikon Corp. (C.D.Cal. 2017) – Counsel for plaintiff Zeiss in multiple actions for patent infringement involving digital camera technology.

CH2O, Inc. v. Meras Engineering, Inc. (C.D.Cal. 2016) – Co-lead counsel for plaintiff/patentee CH2O in patent infringement action water treatment chemistry for greenhouses; won jury verdict of willful infringement and award of $12.5 million.

Lightspeed Aviation, Inc. v. Bose Corp. (D.Mass. 2013) – Lead counsel for Bose in three patent infringement action aviation headsets; won favorable arbitration award.

Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (D.Del. 2012) – Lead counsel defending HP in patent infringement action regarding liquid crystal displays, graphics processing, and pipelined computer processor architectures; settled favorably.

Bose Corp. v. Able Planet, Inc. (D.Co. 2011) – Represented Bose in patent infringement action regarding acoustic architecture of noise-canceling headphones; settled favorably.

SDI Technologies, Inc. v. Bose Corp. (D.Del. 2011) – Lead counsel defending Bose in patent infringement action regarding docking station audio products.

Reporting Technologies, Inc. v. Emma, Inc., (E.D.Va. 2011) – Lead counsel for MicroStrategy subsidiary RTI asserting multiple patents related to business intelligence technology; settled favorably following Markman and summary judgment hearings; settled favorably.

Spansion LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D.Va. 2010) – Represented Samsung in multi-patent infringement action enforcing and defending against multiple patents related to flash memory devices; settled favorably following Markman and summary judgment hearings.

Bose Corp. v. Lightspeed Aviation Inc.. (D.Mass. 2009) – Lead counsel for Bose in patent infringement action enforcing patent related to active noise cancelling headphone technology; settled favorably during trial.

Nacre AS v. Silynx Communications, Inc. (D.Md. 2007) – Lead counsel for Nacre in patent infringement action enforcing multiple patents related to in-ear communications devices; settled favorably.

Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D.Cal. 2006) – Defended Microsoft in 11-patent infringement action regarding variety of computer and internet-related technologies against Lucent and Alcatel-Lucent; won jury verdict of no infringement.

Orion IP, LLC v. Black & Decker. (E.D.Tex. 2006) – Lead counsel for Black & Decker in patent infringement action regarding internet technology; settled favorably.

Garmin Corp. v. TomTom, Inc. (W.D.Wis. 2006) – Represented TomTom in patent infringement action regarding GPS navigation devices; won summary judgment of no infringement and invalidity against five Garmin patents.

All Computers, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (E.D.Va. 2004) – Defended Intel in patent infringement action regarding microprocessor design; won summary judgment of no infringement; affirmed on appeal.

The Bright Ideas Company, Inc. v. Target Corp. (D.Md. 2004) – Represented Target in patent infringement action; won summary judgment of invalidity; affirmed on appeal.

Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Nokia Corp., et al. (D.Del. 2004) – Represented Nokia in large-scale, multi-defendant litigation involving liquid crystal display technology; won summary judgment of invalidity.

Buffets, Inc. v. Sargam LLC (D.Md. 2004) – Represented Buffets, Inc. in trademark infringement action; obtained permanent injunction and attorneys fees.

American Video Graphics LLC. v. Intel Corp., et al. (E.D.Tex. 2004) – Represented Intel in case involving computer graphics technology; settled favorably.

Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp. (E.D.Tex. 2001) – Defended Intel against patent infringement claims regarding parallel processing microprocessor architectures; case won on appeal following adverse decision in trial court.

Level One, Inc.. v. Altima Communications (E.D.Cal. 1999) – Represented Level One in patent infringement action against Altima Communications involving integrated repeaters; settled favorably following trial win in parallel ITC matter.

Shaw v. Broadcast.com, Inc., et al. (N.D.Tex. 1998) – Represented Yahoo! in patent infringement action involving technology for internet streaming of audio and video content; won summary judgment of no infringement, affirmed on appeal.

U.S. International Trade Commission, Section 337 Investigations

Certain Replacement Automotive Parts and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1160 (2019) – Counsel for respondent Direct Technologies in trademark and grey market goods case involving automotive parts; settled favorably.

Certain Semiconductor Lithography Systems and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1137 (2018) – Lead counsel for complainant ASML in three-patent case involving semiconductor lithography equipment; settled favorably.

Certain Earpiece Devices and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1121 (2018) – Lead counsel for complainant Bose Corporation in six-patent/14-respondent case involving headphone technology; won general exclusion order.

Certain Solid State Storage Drives, Stacked Electronics Components, and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-1097 (2018) – Counsel for respondents SK Hynix, HP, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Acer, and Asustek in four-patent case involving memory technology; settled favorably.

Certain Consumer Electronic Devices, Including Televisions, Gaming Consoles, Mobile Phones and Tablets, and Network-Enabled DVD and Blu-Ray Players, 337-TA-1060 (2017) – Counsel for complainant ARRIS Enterprises in six-patent case involving networking technology; settled favorably.

Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof, 337-TA-944/945 (2014) – Counsel for respondent Arista Networks in six-patent case involving network switches and components.

Certain Earpiece Devices Having Positioning and Retaining Structure and Components Thereof, 337-TA-912 (2014) – Lead counsel for Bose Corporation asserting patent related to in-ear headphone technology; settled favorably.

Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (“MEMS Devices”) and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-876 (2013) – Defended InvenSense, Inc. and Stanley Black & Decker in five-patent case involving MEMS sensors and accelerometers; settled favorably during trial.

Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Methods of Making Same and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-855 (2012) – Lead counsel defending Bose Corporation and DeWALT Industrial Tool Co. in four-patent case involving the manufacturing of sintered rare earth magnets.

Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices, 337-TA-836 (2011) – Lead counsel defending Research In Motion (Blackberry) in four-patent case involving graphics processing technology, microprocessor instruction sets, and liquid crystal display technology; settled favorably.

Certain Semiconductor Chips, 337-TA-753 (2010) – Lead counsel defending HP and ASUSTek against numerous Rambus patents concerning DRAM and signal transmission technology; won finding of no violation following full evidentiary hearing.

Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers, 337-TA-661 (2008) – Represented NVIDIA and customers against nine Rambus SDRAM controller patents; settled after full evidentiary hearing while on appeal.

Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones, 337-TA-626 (2007) – Lead counsel for complainant Bose enforcing active noise-cancelling headphone patents against seven respondents; settled favorably just prior to trial.

Certain Foam Footwear, 337-TA-567 (2006) – Defended respondent footwear manufacturer in patent-based unfair importation action brought by Crocs, Inc.; won dismissal prior to trial.

Certain Signature Capture Transaction Devices, 337-TA-504 (2004) – Represented Ingenico S.A. in patent-based unfair importation action brought by NCR Corporation; settled favorably.

Certain Recordable Compact Discs and Rewritable Compact Discs, 337-TA-474 (2002) – Successfully defended multiple respondents against U.S. Philips Corp.; following full evidentiary hearing, six asserted Philips patents held unenforceable for patent misuse following full evidentiary hearing.

Certain CMOS Active Pixel Image Sensors, 337-TA-451 (2001) – Represented Photobit Corporation and the California Institute of Technology against OmniVision Technologies in patent-based unfair importation claims for camera-on-a-chip technology; settled favorably.

Certain Abrasive Products Made Using A Process For Making Powder Preforms, 337-TA-449 (2001) – Represented 3M in patent-based unfair importation claims for methods of manufacturing high-precision abrasives; won exclusion and cease and desist orders following full evidentiary hearing.

Certain Integrated Repeaters, Switches, Transceivers and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-430/435 (1999) – Represented Intel in patent-based unfair importation claims for semiconductor packaging and Ethernet repeaters against Broadcom subsidiary, Altima Communications; won exclusion and cease and desist orders following full evidentiary hearing.

U.S. Appellate Court Cases

Freebit AS v. Bose Corp. (Fed. Cir.) – Represented Bose; won affirmance.

Parker v. Reema Consulting Svcs., Inc. (4th Cir.) – Represented Parker; won vacatur and remand of trial court dismissal.

The Bright Ideas Company, Inc. v. Target Corp. (Fed. Cir.) – Represented Target; won affirmance.

All Computers, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (Fed. Cir.) – Represented Intel; won affirmance.

Shaw v. Broadcast.com, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir.) – Represented Yahoo!; won dismissal of appeal.

Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp. (Fed. Cir.) – Represented Intel; won vacatur and remand of adverse trial court decision.

“Leading ITC Lawyers” by The Legal 500

Focus Areas
Education

J.D. with honors, George Washington University Law School (1999)


B.S., Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland (1992)

Admissions
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 1998
  • Maryland 1999
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims 2000
  • District of Columbia 2002
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2003
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 2004
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin 2006
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 2009
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas 2012
  • U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey 2017
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2018
Memberships & Affiliations

Member: American Bar Association (Section on Intellectual Property Law), American Intellectual Property Law Association, ITC Trial Lawyers Association

What's trending with Andrew

Filter by
Event
November 17th, 2020 | 1:30 pm EST
Webinar | Litigating Non-Patent Claims at the ITC
Webinar
Blog
August 6, 2020
From WarGames to Terms of Service: How the Supreme Court’s Review of Computer Fraud Abuse Act Will Impact Your Trade Secrets
Authors: Eda Stark, Andrew R. Kopsidas
Blogs
News
July 7, 2020
Fish Attorneys Author Article in Bloomberg Law, "INSIGHT: SCOTUS Decision on Computer Fraud Act Could Impact Trade Secrets"
Articles
News
News
May 6, 2020
Fish & Richardson Named to The National Law Journal’s 2020 Pro Bono Hot List
Press Release
News
News
January 21, 2020
Fish Named Law360 International Trade Group of the Year
Media Mention
Articles
Recognition
News
News
October 18, 2019
Fish & Richardson Receives 2019 Human Trafficking Litigation Firm of the Year Award
Press Release
Recognition
News
News
May 3, 2019
Fish & Richardson Wins $1.43 Million For Sex Trafficking Survivor in Pro Bono Civil Suit
Press Release
News
News
February 15, 2019
Fish & Richardson and Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Win Landmark Decision in Gender Discrimination Case
Press Release
News
Blog
January 17, 2019
Sufficiency of ITC Complaint Established By Commission Institution
Authors: Thomas "Monty" Fusco, Andrew R. Kopsidas
IP Litigation
ITC Litigation
Federal Circuit
News
June 13, 2018
Andrew Kopsidas Quoted in Managing Intellectual Property, "How the New ITC Rules Change Litigation Strategy"
Media Mention
News
News
September 7, 2016
Fish & Richardson Wins $12.5 Million Jury Award and Willful Infringement for CH2O in Patent Infringement Case
Press Release
News
News
June 29, 2016
Fish Receives Top Tier 1 National Rankings in Patent Prosecution and Patent Litigation from The Legal 500
Press Release
News
load more topics
TOP