Andrew Bramhall is a partner in the Silicon Valley office, where he has worked since 2007. His practice focuses on high-stakes intellectual property disputes with an emphasis on patent and trade secret litigation. Andrew has represented plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal courts throughout the country, including in the Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California, the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, the District of Delaware, the Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York. Andrew has litigated numerous investigations before the International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington D.C. on behalf of complainants and respondents, and has also represented both petitioners and patent owners in post-grant proceedings before the USPTO, including in inter partes review and re-examinations.
Litigating complex technology is Andrew’s forte. At Quinn Emanuel, he has worked on matters involving a wide range of technologies across a broad spectrum of scientific and engineering disciplines, including semiconductor processing, genetic cloning, DNA printing, magnetic tape, micro-electromechanical systems (MEMs), wireless communications and standards, computer operating and data storage systems, liquid crystal displays, optical devices, and smart phones—to name a few. Prior to law school, Andrew worked in a biotech laboratory at a start-up company in the Bay Area, which specialized in making gene- and protein-based arrays and was eventually acquired by Affymetrix.
Andrew has routinely been recognized as a top lawyer in his field, having been named a Super Lawyers Rising Star from 2013 – 2019.
- Twist Bioscience
- Motorola Mobility
- Marvell Semiconductor
- Represented Twist Bioscience in a California state court case filed by Agilent Technologies Inc., which had alleged claims of breach of contract, breach of duty of loyalty, and trade secret misappropriation against Twist and certain of its employees. The case involved cutting-edge gene synthesis technology that married DNA chemistry with semiconductor processing methods. The case settled on the eve of trial on the heels of the filing of numerous dispositive motions by Twist.
- Argued and won at the Federal Circuit on behalf of Sony Corporation, which the Firm represented in a patent action filed by plaintiff Cascades Projection regarding digital projectors—including those used in high-end movie theaters around the country. Mr. Bramhall acted as lead counsel in prosecuting a successful inter partes review challenge against the asserted patent, which was then affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
- Argued and won at the Federal Circuit on behalf of IBM, affirming a district court ruling obtained at the claim construction stage in district court that all the patent claims asserted by plaintiff Twin Peaks Software were indefinite. Opinion available here.
- Represented Sony in a multi-jurisdictional dispute with Fujifilm relating to Sony’s digital back-up tapes, marketed under the brand name LTO Ultrium. The dispute involved, among other lawsuits, two successive offensive ITC actions brought by Sony against Fujifilm, each of which was tried to an Administrative Law Judge. Successfully obtained an exclusion order against Fujifilm barring its products from being imported into the United States. The dispute was ultimately resolved subsequent to this determination by the ITC.
- Represented BlackBerry as a plaintiff in a design patent, utility patent and trade dress infringement case against Typo Products, relating to a keyboard case sold by Typo that copied the design of BlackBerry’s iconic physical keyboard. Successfully obtained a preliminary and permanent injunction against the defendant.
- Represented Marvell Semiconductor in a patent suit originally brought by France Telecom in the Southern District of New York but later transferred to the Northern District of California. France Telecom asserted a patent it alleged to cover the error correction technique commonly known as turbo-coding. Part of a team that tried the case to verdict, and ultimately obtained a complete victory on behalf of Marvell.
- Represented Sony in an ITC Investigation (337-TA-815) initiated by Compound Photonics Ltd. and Compound Photonics U.S. Corporation. Complainants voluntarily withdrew their complaint on the eve of trial, resulting in the Investigation being terminated by the ITC.
- Represented Sony in a patent case brought by Compound Photonics in the Eastern District of Texas. Successfully obtained transfer to Southern District of California and won strongly favorable claim construction rulings, which ultimately resulted in a summary judgment win based on non-infringement. The plaintiff walked away with nothing.
- Represented Broadcom, Mediatek, STMicroelectronics, Motorola, and others in an ITC Investigation (337-TA-753) initiated by Rambus Incorporated concerning memory controllers. The ITC found no violation for all claims defended by the Firm.
- Represented Marvell Semiconductor, Ralink, Canon, and Lexmark in a patent suit brought by MOSAID Technologies in the Eastern District of Texas asserting six patents that purported to cover WiFi technology. The case settled favorably for each client.
- Represented Google and Match.com in a patent suit brought by Bedrock Computer Technologies in the Eastern District of Texas involving infringement assertions against a deletion method performed by the Linux operating system. Part of a team that tried the case to verdict for Google. The case settled on favorable terms shortly thereafter.
- Represented Sony Electronics Inc. and Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. in a patent infringement case brought by Bandspeed Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Austin). The case involved patents related to adaptive frequency hopping that were asserted against Bluetooth-compliant products, including the Sony PlayStation 3. Secured favorable settlement for Sony.
- New York University School of Law
- Pomona College
(B.A., Molecular Biology, 2001)
- Panomics, Inc., 2001-2004:
- Laboratory Research Associate
- Associate Marketing Manager
- Super Lawyers, Rising Star 2013-2019
- Sorting Out Single-Reference Obviousness at Fed. Cir., Law360, January 22, 2018.
- An Early Review of the Impact of Form 18’s Elimination on Pleading Direct Infringement, Patently-O Guest Post, April 6, 2016.
- Digging Through The New Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Law360, May 26, 2015.
- 3 Potential Consequences Of Losing Rule 84 And The Forms, Law360, June 24, 2015.
- Member, American Bar Association