Andrew J. Koopman

Many people come to intellectual property law through an interest in science.  Andy was led here by his love of argument. From debating philosophy in high school, to feuding about sports in college, Andy turned his natural inclination to challenge into a daily passion.  Now, Andy gets to spend his days defending attacks on his clients’ intellectual property and securing patents for his clients, and he would not have it any other way.

How Andy Helps Clients

When he learned that intellectual property attorneys typically focus on either patent prosecution or litigation, Andy disagreed (of course).  Pouring himself into both sides of intellectual property practice, Andy specializes in both patent and trademark litigation and patent prosecution, and he is the co-leader of the firm’s electrical/computer science practice group. The breadth of his practice allows Andy to offer his clients a complete and integrated strategy to intellectual property protection and enforcement.

Andy is President of the Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Association, where he coordinates monthly educational and social meetings with IP professionals in the Philadelphia and Delaware bars.  Andy has written a chapter on Noninfringement and Invalidity Opinions in the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s Electronic and Software Patents textbook.  On multiple occasions, Andy has spoken at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s IP Law Institute on the subject of patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Andy has been named a Pennsylvania Rising Star for many years in the areas of intellectual property and intellectual property litigation.

Litigation

Andy’s litigation practice involves many different areas of intellectual property law, including patent, trademark, trade secret, and non-compete cases.  He has first-chaired litigations in Delaware and Texas, and litigated in courts throughout the country, including before the Federal Circuit.  His practice encompasses all stages of litigation, through pleadings, discovery, claim construction, dispositive motions, and trial. 

Post-Grant

Andy has years of experience practicing before both the Patent and Trademark Trial and Appeal Boards.  He has drafted numerous petitions for inter partes review, and has represented clients through the process, including oral arguments before the PTAB.

Recent cases before Federal Courts and PTAB include: 

• Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. Workzone, LLC (D. Del.) (represented defendant against non-practicing entity, obtaining favorable settlement after early challenge to patent subject matter eligibility)
• Arigna Technology Ltd. v. Volkswagen et al., (E.D. Tx.) (defended automotive supplier and OEM customers against hedge-fund backed non-practicing entity, obtaining favorable settlement on eve of trial)
• Active Motif, Inc. v. EpiCypher, Inc. (D. Del.) (represented plaintiff alleging infringement of patents involving epigenetic processes, obtaining favorable settlement following claim construction)
• A.O. Smith Corp. v. Bradford White Corp., (D. Del.) (represented defendant through trial involving patents covering residential water heating systems)
• Cabela’s LLC v. Highby Outdoors, LLC, (D. Del.) (successfully represented former Cabela’s executives at preliminary injunction hearing and on appeal against non-compete and trade secret misappropriation claims)
• Remediation Products, Inc. v. Innovative Environmental Tech., Inc. (PTAB) (successfully obtained final written decision invalidating all asserted claims in IPR involving environmental remediation technology)
• AMETEK Denmark A/S v. Fluke Corp. (P.T.A.B.) (successfully obtained final written decision upholding the patentability of all challenged claims, which judgment was again reached a second time following remand by the Federal Circuit to consider the patentability of previously non-instituted claims)
• Crayola LLC v. Univ. of Cincinnati (PTAB) (successfully obtained final written decision invalidating all asserted claims in IPR involving recreational light emissive devices)
• Essick Air Products v. Crane USA Inc., (E.D. Ark.) (represented plaintiff in D.J. action of no trade dress infringement; won case on summary judgment)

Patent Procurement

Andy’s primary responsibilities include the preparation and prosecution of utility patent applications in technical areas including electronics, semiconductors, software, medical devices, optical devices, fluidic devices and biomechanical devices. He has extensive experience in all aspects of patent prosecution, having drafted dozens of applications, procured many patents and won numerous appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Andy has particular expertise on subject matter eligibility issues before the USPTO, where he has counseled clients with artificial intelligence and other software inventions regarding the unique issues involved in procuring patent protection for their intellectual property.

Design

Andy has prepared, prosecuted and litigated numerous design patent applications. He has design patent experience in fields as diverse as medical devices, firearms, environmental systems and bartending implements.  His wide range of experience provides him with the know-how to identify and focus on the important features that make any product suitable for design patent protection.

Trade Secrets

Andy has counseled and litigated on behalf of clients in trade secret disputes.  He has worked with clients to develop, review, and enforce trade secret policies, including the preparation, execution, and enforcement of non-competition agreements.  Andy has also litigated trade secret issues, including successfully enforcing and defending clients involved in complex trade secret disputes.

My favorite thing about my work is hearing from a client with a problem that I know I can help them solve. 

What Clients Can Expect

A good argument requires a strong foundation. Andy’s scientific background in applied physics and engineering provides him with a strong foundation to assist clients in a variety of different industries and technologies.  His diverse technological experience enables Andy to handle issues unique to various areas of patent prosecution, including software and electronics, automotive technology, medical devices and treatments, telecommunications, or materials sciences.  And his love of argument frequently results in the procurement of patents for his clients.

A client’s business objectives rarely end when a patent or trademark issues.  Enforcing intellectual property, or protecting oneself from the allegations of others, is a critical aspect of a complete business strategy.  In this area, Andy has extensive experience fighting for his client’s interests in both intellectual property litigation and post-grant practice.  In court, Andy has litigated cases across the United States and has successfully enforced his clients’ patents and trademarks on numerous occasions against unfair competitors.  Likewise, Andy has defended his clients from the spurious claims of patent trolls in the Eastern District of Texas and beyond.  In the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Andy has successfully argued before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to invalidate the claims of competitors’ patents in inter partes review.  Whether on offense or defense, patents or trademarks, Andy has argued to protect his client’s interests.

Outside the Office

When he is not working, Andy is kept busy by a number of hobbies, including cooking, running, and gaming.  He is an avid fan of professional and college supports, and a lifetime supporter of most Philadelphia sports franchises. 

Proof Points

• Represents clients in patent and trademark infringement and trade secret actions in federal court with extensive experience in court in Delaware
• Represents clients involved in inter partes disputes before the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board
• Provides IP protection and patent procurement counseling for clients in automotive, electronic, medical device, and materials science fields
• Provides freedom to operate and product clearance counseling to clients in competitive and complex IP landscapes