Drew is an experienced patent litigator and trial attorney whose work encompasses a broad range of technologies. He regularly represents clients in high stakes International Trade Commission investigations involving some of the world's largest technology companies. He also litigates patent matters and other business disputes in federal district courts around the country, and advises clients in complex IP licensing and related transactions. Drew excels at helping clients make sense of nuanced legal issues while developing effective strategies to protect and leverage their intellectual property.
Drew focuses his intellectual property practice in patent litigation, with an emphasis on Section 337 investigations in the International Trade Commission. Drew has participated in all phases of numerous ITC investigations involving some of the largest technology companies in the world. He has first-chair trial and strategy experience during multiple ITC evidentiary hearings, and regularly leads large litigation teams through fast-paced ITC investigations. Drew has also litigated patent infringement and trade secret cases and other complex business disputes in federal district courts across the country. He has successfully argued on behalf of his clients during multiple Markman claim construction hearings, as well as on all manner of discovery, pretrial, and other motions, before the ITC and federal district courts.
In addition, Drew provides strategic counseling to help clients protect and leverage IP rights to maximize their value. Drew has participated in negotiating and closing numerous complex IP licensing and sale transactions, including elaborate multiparty agreements involving thousands of patents, as well as conducting pre-suit and transactional diligence relating to large portfolios of U.S. and foreign intellectual property assets. He also advises clients on trademark protection and related disputes.
Drew has worked in diverse technology areas such as embedded microprocessors, liquid crystal displays, graphics processors, consumer telecommunications systems, converged devices and related software and operating systems, mobile communications infrastructure, DDR4-compliant memory modules and their components, memory controllers, LED-based lighting systems, thermoplastics, electrical motors, and biochemical assays.
Drew is a member of the firm’s Pro Bono Committee. His own pro bono work includes representing asylum-seekers, as well as clients of the Mintz Domestic Violence Program in obtaining and extending 209A abuse prevention orders on behalf of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, including on appeal.
More Legal and Business Bylines From Andrew H. DeVoogd
- Patent Damages: How Many Essential Features in a Smart Phone? - (Posted On Friday, March 30, 2018)
- Doctrine of “Ancillary Venue” Does Not Trump TC Heartland - (Posted On Wednesday, March 28, 2018)
- Improper Reliance on Informal “Opinion of Counsel” Part of Basis for Exceptional Case Award - (Posted On Monday, February 05, 2018)
- Sued Customers Insufficient to Prove a Supplier’s Actual Case or Controversy Against Patentee - (Posted On Tuesday, January 30, 2018)
- Defendants Waived Venue Challenge After Waiting Four Months After TC Heartland Decision to Move - (Posted On Tuesday, January 02, 2018)
- Lower Courts Continue to Grapple with Venue in the Wake of In re Micron and In re Cray - (Posted On Tuesday, December 19, 2017)
- Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Oil States Regarding Constitutional Challenge to Inter Partes Review - (Posted On Friday, December 08, 2017)
- District Court Denies Motion to Stay Pending Supreme Court Decision in Oil States - (Posted On Friday, November 17, 2017)
- Federal Circuit Concludes that TC Heartland Was a Change in the Law, Reviving Venue Transfer Motions for Defendants Previously Held to Have Waived the Argument - (Posted On Thursday, November 16, 2017)
- Yahoo Asks Federal Circuit to Determine Whether TC Heartland Changed, or Merely Clarified, Venue Rules - (Posted On Friday, November 10, 2017)