Andrew Kopsidas is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Hughes Hubbard & Reed in the Intellectual Property practice. He provides strategic counseling for companies in a range of industries including internet, telecommunications, and aerospace & defense, in solving problems relating to issues with technology, trade secrets, and intellectual property disputes. Andrew is a lead trial lawyer recognized for producing positive results for his clients. He develops consistent effective solutions in matters with uncompromising efficiency.
Andrew has handled patent, trade secret, and other intellectual property matters in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and U.S. district courts in dozens of states. He has litigated case involving autonomous vehicles, internet applications, microprocessors, telecommunications networks and standards, mobile technology, digital signal processing, and various software. His clients are among the most prominent U.S., Asian, and European companies. Andrew has been recognized as a “Leading ITC Lawyer” by The Legal 500 and is described by one client as “a unique strategic mind with real courtroom chops.”
Prior to joining Hughes Hubbard & Reed, Andrew was a principal at Fish & Richardson P.C. He also has a background in aerospace and electric engineering. Before going to law school, he worked at NASA as a flight controller and systems engineer on the Hubble Space Telescope and several Space Shuttle missions. Andrew also worked as an aerospace design engineer at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
He takes pride in training 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. His 2019 verdict of $1.5 million on behalf of a victim of human trafficking earned The Human Trafficking Legal Center’s “Litigation Firm of the Year” award.
Trade Secrets Litigation
Aerospace and Defense
"INSIGHT: SCOTUS Decision on Computer Fraud Act Could Impact Trade Secrets,” Bloomberg Law (July 2020)
Speaker, “Trade Secret Practice in the U.S.” (May 2020)
Speaker, “The Section 101 Landscape” (October 2019)
Speaker, “Trade Secret Practice in the U.S.” (November 2019)
Speaker, “Patent Prosecution Tips from a Litigator” (April 2019)
Speaker, “Legal Challenges for Autonomous Vehicles” (October 2018)
Speaker, “Patent Litigation in the International Trade Commission” (June 2018)
Co-Speaker, “Claim Drafting from a Litigation Relief Perspective” (March 2018)
Co-Speaker, “Enforcing Non-Patent Intellectual Property Rights at the ITC” (November 2017)
Co-Speaker, “Best Practices for Trade Secrets & Cybersecurity” (June 2017)
Co-Speaker, “The New Landscape for Trade Secrets in the U.S.” (October 2016)
Co-Speaker, “ITC Practice and Procedure” (October 2016)
Speaker, “Patent Litigation in the International Trade Commission” (June 2016)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2018)
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (2017)
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (2012)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (2009)
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (2006)
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (2004)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2003)
U.S. Court of Federal Claims (2000)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (1998)
Named a “Leading Patent Professional” by IAM Patent 1000 (2021)
Recognized by The Legal 500 as a “Leading ITC Lawyer”
Memberships & Affiliations
Member, American Bar Association (Section on Intellectual Property Law)
Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
Member, International Trade Commission (ITC) Trial Lawyers Association
Member, Intellectual Property Owners Association
U.S. District Court Cases
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. HP Inc. (D.Del. 2020) – Lead counsel for HP in four-patent case involving digital video technology.
Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D.Tex. 2020) – Counsel for Samsung in eight-patent case regarding Standard Essential Patents in 4G and 5G technology.
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 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 involving 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 involving 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.
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.
U.S. International Trade Commission, Section 337 Investigations
Certain Digital Video-Capable Devices and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1224 – Lead Counsel for HP in patent infringement case; case pending.
Certain Replacement Automotive Parts and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1160 (2019) – Lead 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.
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.
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.
Pro Bono Matters
Alfaro v. Gandy (S.D.Tex. 2018) – Won record $1.5M judgment for victim of human trafficking.
Parker v. Reema Consulting Svcs., Inc. (D.Md. 2017) – Won jury verdict of $725,000 for victim of sexual discrimination and retaliation.