Associate
Andrew Schneider's varied practice includes patent litigation in U.S. district courts, patent prosecution, and post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). He works with a diverse set of technologies, including financial services, manufacturing, medical devices, and augmented reality (AR) devices.
Andrew advises clients on patent-specific litigation positions, including infringement, validity, and claim construction. He has experience drafting inter partes review (IPR) and ex parte reexamination petitions on behalf of both patent owners and challengers. He also counsels clients through the patent application process before the USPTO, which includes invention harvesting, conducting prior art searches, drafting new patent applications, and responding to Office Actions.
While in law school, Andrew interned at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where he was involved in various patent litigation cases as well as appeals from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He served as a law clerk for the U.S. International Trade Commissions (ITC) Office of Unfair Import Investigations, focusing on cases involving patent and trademark infringement as well as trade secret misappropriation.
Prior to law school, Andrew worked for a global engineering firm, designing fire sprinkler and alarm systems for commercial buildings and large mixed-use facilities. He also assisted in developing computer models to detail fire and heat transfer between adjacent buildings.
Andrew also devotes a portion of his time to pro bono matters, specifically those involving post-conviction relief under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA). He has been recognized on the Capital Pro Bono High Honor Roll.
Liberty Access Technologies Licensing LLC v. ASSA ABLOY AB et al.
2:22-cv-00507, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
2:22-cv-0318, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
1:23-cv-00756, N.D. Ill., Judge Kocoras
IPR2023-00815, -00816, -00817, PTAB
United States Automobile Association v. Truist Bank
2:22-cv-00291, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
IPR2022-01593, IPR2023-00143, -00144, -00183, -00184, -00829, PTAB, Judges Dirba, Droesch, McMillin, White, Zecher
Articles
Exploring Patent Trends in Aerospace Electrification Exploring Patent Trends in Aerospace Electrification
April 11, 2024
Law360Articles
Is Hedonic Regression a Viable Damages Framework? The Federal Circuit Leaves this Question Open in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Is Hedonic Regression a Viable Damages Framework? The Federal Circuit Leaves this Question Open in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel
January 30, 2024
Articles
Confidentiality Agreements May Be Enforced Against Employees Based on Continued Employment Even if There Is No New Additional Consideration Confidentiality Agreements May Be Enforced Against Employees Based on Continued Employment Even if There Is No New Additional Consideration
July 27, 2023
LES InsightsArticles
Lost Profit Damages Must Flow Directly From the Contract’s Subject Matter Lost Profit Damages Must Flow Directly From the Contract’s Subject Matter
April 13, 2023
LES InsightsArticles
Can Confidential Supervisory Information Bar a Patent? Can Confidential Supervisory Information Bar a Patent?
December 5, 2022
Westlaw TodayFederal Circuit IP Blog
Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – July 2022 Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – July 2022
June 27, 2022
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.