Bar Admissions

  • Washington
  • Illinois
  • District of Columbia
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Education

  • J.D., Temple University School of Law, 1998
    Temple Environmental Law & Technology Journal
  • B.S., Microbiology, University of Washington, 1993

Memberships

  • ITC Trial Lawyers Association

    Federal Circuit Bar Association

    American Intellectual Property Law Association

    Norwegian American Chamber of Commerce
T +1 202.344.4389
F +1 202.344.8300
 

Andrew F. Pratt

Partner

Andrew Pratt is a partner in Venable’s Washington, DC-based Intellectual Property Litigation Group. He has significant experience advising clients on intellectual property issues and litigating intellectual property disputes in federal courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

Andrew regularly appears as trial counsel before the ITC and has been involved in over thirty Section 337 proceedings and nine trials. He has been involved in a full range of disputes involving hardware and software technologies, including semiconductor fabrication processes, semiconductor package technologies, LCD driver circuits, VoIP technology, image compression, and cellular telephone baseband and PDA processors. Andrew has also been involved in litigation involving firearms, chemical compositions, orthopedic implants, and automotive sensors and safety systems.

In addition to intellectual property, Andrew also has experience litigating complex trade secret actions and trademark, design patent, and copyright infringement actions. He is a Registered Patent Attorney at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.

During law school, Andrew worked as an extern for the Honorable Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Significant ITC Matters

  • Certain Krill Oil Products and Krill Meal for Production of Krill Oil Products No. 337-TA-1019 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Complainant Aker BioMarine in investigation involving assertion of patents concerning krill oil and krill meal production. Case settled favorably.)
  • Certain Electrical Conductor Composite Cores and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-995 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Complainant CTC Global in investigation involving assertion of patents concerning electrical cable technology.) 
  • Certain Height Adjustable Desk Platforms, Investigation No. 337-TA-992 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Complainant Varidesk LLP in case involving assertions of patents concerning office furniture.)
  • Certain Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Systems and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-973 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Respondent AliphCom d/b/a/ Jawbone in investigation involving allegations of patent infringement.) 
  • Certain Fitness Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-963 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Complainant AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone in action involving trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement assertions.) 
  • Certain Variable Valve Actuation Devices and Automobiles Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-954 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent FCA Respondents (formerly Fiat Chrysler) in investigation concerning patents directed to variable valve actuation devices. Complainant withdrew complaint on the eve of trial.)
  • Certain Laser Abraded Denim Garments, Investigation No. 337-TA-930 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Respondents Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Roberto Cavalli S.p.A. against allegations of patent infringement. Case settled favorably.)
  • Certain Beverage Brewing Capsules, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-929 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent five respondents against Complainant in defense of asserted patent directed to reusable filters.)
  • Certain Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-920 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Respondents ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International in investigation concerning semiconductor chipsets.)
  • Certain Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, Components Thereof, and Related Software, Investigation No. 337-TA-808 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Respondent Apple, Inc. against Complainants HTC Corp. and HTC Americas Corp. Successfully terminated, before trial, five patents HTC obtained from a third party for lack of standing.)
  • Certain Printing and Imaging Devices, Investigation No. 337-TA-690 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Respondents Oki Data and Oki Americas in case brought by Complainant Ricoh entities in investigation regarding alleged infringement of five patents directed to multifunction printers. Determination of no economic domestic industry for all five asserted patents. Resulted in landmark Commission opinion regarding economic prong.)
  • Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-777 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Temporary exclusion order denied based substantially on cross-examination of economic expert witness that revealed lack of irreparable harm.)
  • Certain Paper Shredders, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same, and Certain Products Containing Same and Certain Parts Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-863 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Chinese respondents in investigation involving allegations of trade secret misappropriation and design patent infringement.)
  • Certain Handheld Electronic Computing Devices, Related Software, and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-769 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Complainant Microsoft Corp. against Respondents Barnes & Noble, Foxconn, and Inventec in investigation regarding the Barnes & Noble Nook electronic reader products.)
  • Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-744 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Complainant Microsoft Corp. against Respondent Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. in investigation regarding cellular telephone handsets. Achieved determination that software development is manufacturing for purposes of domestic industry economic prong.)
  • Certain Devices Having Elastomeric Gel and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-732 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent foreign respondent in case involving elastomeric gels. Case settled favorably.)
  • Certain Electronic Devices with Image Processing Systems, Components Thereof, and Associated Software, Investigation No. 337-TA-724 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Respondent Apple, Inc. against Complainant S3 Graphics Corp. in investigation regarding alleged infringement of four patents directed to texture compression.)
  • Certain Game Controllers, Investigation No. 337-TA-715 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Respondents Datel Design and Development Ltd. and Datel Design and Development Inc. against Complainant Microsoft Corp. in investigation regarding alleged infringement of five design patents.)
  • Certain Adjustable Keyboard Support And Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-670 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Complainant Humanscale Corp. against manufacturer of keyboard support arms in investigation regarding infringement of patent directed to adjustable keyboard systems.)
  • Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-648 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n) (Represent Complainants LSI Corp. and Agere Systems Inc. against twenty-three respondents in investigation regarding infringement of patent directed to methods of depositing tungsten in contact holes and vias.)
  • Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-501 (United States Int'l Trade Comm'n and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) (Represent Respondent Carsem entities against Complainant Amkor Technology, Inc. in investigation regarding alleged infringement of three patents directed to chip-scale packages.)
  • Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC (Federal Circuit Court of Appeals) (Represent wireless device manufacturer in Appeal from ITC's Limited Exclusion Order excluding certain wireless device chips and chipsets of named party, and devices containing the chips and chipsets of third party manufacturers not named in the underlying Investigation. Obtained stay of Limited Exclusion Order for client pending outcome of the appeal, and obtained favorable ruling from United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.)

Significant District Court and State Court Matters
  • Honeywell International Inc. et al v. Acer America Corp. et al. (E.D. Tex.) (Represent LCD driver manufacturer Novatek Microelectronics Corp. in patent infringement action directed to flicker-free LCD circuits. Case won on summary judgment.)
  • Verizon Services Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp. (E.D. Va.) (Represent plaintiff in patent litigation concerning Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP.))
  • Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Pactiv Corp. (S.D. Ind.) (Represent plaintiff in patent litigation involving methods of form-fill-and-seal food packaging. Case settled favorably.)
  • Zimmer, Inc. v. BTG Ltd. (D. Del.) (Defense of patent litigation involving patent directed to hip implants. Case settled favorably.)
  • Zimmer, Inc. v. BTG Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson (Ind. State Trial Court) (Breach of contract action involving most favored licensee provision of patent license.)
  • Zimmer v. DePuy, Inc. (D. Ill.) (Defense of patent litigation involving femoral implant kits.)
  • Strahilevitz v. Kaneka Pharma America Corp. (W.D. Wash.) (Patent infringement litigation relating to immunological methods for removing cholesterol from the blood circulatory system.)
  • EOS GmbH Electro Optical Systems v. 3D Systems, Inc. (C.D. Cal. and N.D. Tex.) (Complex patent litigation involving assertion of sixteen patents for 3-D printing technology and defense against two patents directed to nylon formulations.)
  • The B.F. Goodrich Co. and Rosemount Aerospace, Inc. v. Esterline Tech. Corp. and Auxitrol S.A. (D. Minn.) (Trade dress litigation relating to the configuration of temperature probes for use on aircraft.)