Print PDF

P. Andrew Riley
+1 202 408 4266

901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4413

+1 202 408 4000
Fax +1 202 408 4400

Bar and Court Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Virginia
  • U.S. District Court, E.D. Virginia
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Veterans Claims
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


  • College of William and Mary School of Law
    J.D., 2003
  • College of William and Mary
    M.B.A., 2003
  • Boston University
    B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1995

P. Andrew Riley


Andrew Riley focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and counseling, with an emphasis on patent litigation before U.S. district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). He has experience litigating in the most popular patent venues, including the E.D. Texas, N.D. California, and D. Delaware. His practice also includes licensing, opinions, and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). These contentious PTAB trials often run in parallel with district court litigations and Mr. Riley coordinates the strategy and positions taken in both.

Mr. Riley's litigation experience includes preparing, examining, and cross-examining fact and expert witnesses at trial; conducting and defending depositions; and preparing and arguing motions. He has worked on matters involving a wide array of technologies, including medical devices, mobile phones, software, wind-turbine generators, motor and hybrid vehicles, Internet applications, semiconductors, image sensors, manufacturing machines, and pharmaceuticals.

Mr. Riley currently serves as an adjunct associate professor at American University Washington College of Law where he teaches a course on intellectual property practice at the ITC. Mr. Riley also devotes time to pro bono matters. He has represented clients before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Social Security Administration.

Prior to law school, Mr. Riley served four years on active duty as an officer in the U.S. Army.


  • Unified Patents Inc. v. iMTX Strategic, LLC (PTAB). Represented Unified Patents as petitioner in IPR; after hearing, PTAB issued final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
  • Ventronics Systems, LLC v. Maquet Critical Care AB (D. Del.). Pursued successful motion to transfer case from E.D. Texas to D. Delaware on behalf of defendant Maquet. Pursued PGR at the USPTO resulting in cancelled claims and district court complaint dismissed with prejudice.
  • Norman IP Holdings, LLP v. Toyota Motor Sales; Mazda Motor of American; and Subaru of America (E.D. Tex.). Defended Toyota, Mazda, and Subaru in patent litigation involving telematics technology resulting in favorable settlements.
  • Certain Electronics Devices with Graphics Data Processing Systems, 337-TA-813 (ITC). Represented S3 Graphics in an ITC investigation against Apple relating to 3D graphics rendering technologies. Investigation terminated after settlement.
  • PJC Logisitcs, LLC v. Toyota Motor Sales (D. Minn.). Represented defendant Toyota in this multidistrict litigation relating to telematics technology. Favorable settlement reached.
  • Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, 337-TA-703 (ITC). Represented Research In Motion (RIM) in patent litigation involving digital camera technology in smartphones. The Commission found no violation of Section 337 by RIM.
  • Certain Electronic Imaging Devices, 337-TA-726 (ITC). Represented RIM in patent litigation involving camera technology in smartphones, which resulted in a favorable settlement for RIM.
  • Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines, 337-TA-641 (ITC). Represented respondents Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and its subsidiaries in patent litigation against General Electric. The Commission found no violation of Section 337 by Mitsubishi.
  • Certain Combination Motor and Transmission Systems and Devices Used Therein, 337-TA-561 (ITC). Represented respondent Toyota in patent litigation against Solomon Technologies that sought to exclude Toyota's hybrid vehicles from the United States. The Commission found no violation of Section 337 by Toyota.
  • Netscape v. ValueClick (E.D. Va.). Represented Netscape Communications in patent litigation involving Internet technology, which resulted in a favorable settlement for Netscape.

Professional Recognition

  • Recognized by The Legal 500 U.S. for patent licensing and transactional work, 2015.

Professional Activities

  • Intellectual Property Owners Association (U.S. International Trade Commission Committee, 2016)
  • American Bar Association (Litigation and Intellectual Property Law Sections)
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
  • International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association (337 Reporter, feature editor, 2012-2014)
  • Licensing Executives Society U.S.A. and Canada

Select Publications