Andrew Krause has represented clients from a variety of industries in patent litigation in district court and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as well as in strategic patent prosecution and portfolio management. Andrew’s clients in the life sciences industry include Genentech and Gilead Sciences, while his technology clients include Juniper Networks and Skyworks Solutions.

From 2008 to 2010, Andrew worked as a patent examiner at the USPTO.


  • DePuy Synthes Products Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc. and Fidelio Capital AB (M.D. Fla., PTAB). Represented DePuy Synthes, an industry leader in veterinary orthopedic implants, in patent infringement litigation against VOI and Fidelio Capital. Secured a jury verdict in favor of DePuy Synthes on all issues, finding that VOI and Fidelio willfully infringed and awarding over $59 million in damages. The court subsequently entered a permanent injunction against VOI and Fidelio.
  • Alector v. Asa Abeliovich, M.D., Ph.D. (JAMS arbitration). Represented prominent neuroscientist and drug developer Asa Abeliovich, the founder and CEO of Prevail Therapeutics, a company developing gene therapies for patients suffering from neurodegenerative diseases, in a trade secret arbitration proceeding. The case involved allegations that Prevail’s work was based on Alector’s alleged trade secrets, for which Alector sought relief in the form of substantial monetary damages as well as ownership rights to Prevail’s intellectual property estate. After a two-week arbitration hearing at which Andrew handled the examination of Dr. Abeliovich's scientific experts, the arbitrator rejected all of the principal claims against Dr. Abeliovich, including all claims alleging misappropriation or misuse of trade secrets and confidential information.  
  • Genentech, Inc. v. Celltrion, Inc.; Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. Representing Genentech, Inc. and Biogen Inc. in district court and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and in various “patent dances” under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), relating to the blockbuster drug Rituxan® (rituximab), an antibody treatment for certain types of cancer and autoimmune diseases. Successfully defended Genentech and Biogen against nearly 30 IPR petitions attacking Genentech and Biogen patents. Secured numerous non-institution decisions, adverse judgments against petitioners, and final written decisions rejecting the attacks on all claims.
  • In re Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (E.D. Tex. / D. Del. / MDL). Representing Juniper Networks in a multidistrict patent litigation in which the plaintiff asserted a number of patents relating to wireless communications technologies. Following a favorable claim construction ruling, the plaintiff dismissed all claims with respect to one of the asserted patents, and stipulated to noninfringement of the others. The case is currently pending appeal.
  • Represented a small, innovative pharmaceutical company in a complex patent infringement suit concerning an FDA-approved small-molecule cancer drug. The case settled favorably.
  • Represented the technology transfer office of a major research university in an investigation relating to the improper use of research funding and misappropriation of intellectual property by a former graduate student.

Honors & Awards

  • Recognized on the list of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch (2023-2024)


Columbia Law School (J.D., 2013); Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar

University of Michigan (B.S., Biochemistry, 2008)


  • California, 2013
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Jump to Page