Andrew is a registered patent attorney, with degrees in both electrical and mechanical engineering, and focuses his practice on patent prosecution and post-grant proceedings. His practice also includes intellectual portfolio management and opinion preparation. Andrew has extensive experience with hybrid electric vehicles, LED lighting systems,...
Andrew is a registered patent attorney, with degrees in both electrical and mechanical engineering, and focuses his practice on patent prosecution and post-grant proceedings. His practice also includes intellectual portfolio management and opinion preparation. Andrew has extensive experience with hybrid electric vehicles, LED lighting systems, audio systems, electric machines, controls, electronics, telecommunications, augmented reality and virtual reality technology.
Andrew has worked with clients of various sizes, from individual entrepreneurs to Fortune 500 companies. He particularly enjoys working with innovative people in different sectors and helping clients solve complex issues. He excels at developing strategies for prosecuting patent applications and challenging patents.
Prior to his legal career, Andrew was an engineer in the automotive industry. He worked on the development of several electro-mechanical systems including: adjustable pedals, brake systems and battery charging systems. Andrew utilizes his engineering industry experience to counsel clients in view of their business concerns, and to communicate with inventors and patent examiners on technical issues.
Practice Areas & Industries
J.D., Wayne State University
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, GMI Engineering & Management Institute (now Kettering University)
B.S., Electrical Engineering, Oakland University
IEE v. Aptiv Technologies, Limited (PTAB): Representing IEE in an inter partes review proceeding challenging the validity of a patent related to occupant detection systems. IPR2018-00179
Google LLC v. Seven Networks, LLC (PTAB): Defended Seven in multiple inter partes review proceedings related to telecommunications. Representative Case No. IPR2018-01115
Ford Motor Company v. Paice, Representative (PTAB): Represented Ford during the pendency of 22 inter partes review proceedings challenging the validity of hundreds of claims across five separate patents related to hybrid vehicles. Managed proceedings through final written decision where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held 273 patent claims were unpatentable. Case Nos.: IPR2014-00570, IPR2014-00875, IPR2014-01415, IPR2015-00785, IPR2015-00801
Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Representative (Fed. Cir. 2016-2018): Successfully represented Ford in numerous appeals challenging the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions that had found hundreds of patent claims as being unpatentable. Case Nos.: 2016-1411, 2016-1647, 2017-1387
In re Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles (ITC): Trial counsel for Ford Motor Company in multi-patent investigation directed to hybrid electric vehicles. Settlement after trial. Inv. No. 337-TA-1042
Michigan Intellectual Property Law Association (MIPLA)
PTAB Bar Association – Young Lawyers & Agents Committee
State Bar of Michigan
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
SOUTHFIELD, Mich. – Brooks Kushman P.C. – a nationally ranked intellectual property and technology law firm – recently hired four new associates based at the firm`s Southfield, Mich. office. The announcement was made by Mark Cantor, president of the firm. “The new associates are a strong asset to our patent prosecution...
Brooks Kushman's Turner to Present on the Importance of IP at American Society of Engineers of Indian Origin Event
SOUTHFIELD, Mich., - Andrew Turner, registered patent agent at Brooks Kushman`s Detroit office, is continuing the firm`s relationship with the American Society of Engineers of Indian Origin (ASEI) by helping educate ASEI members about the various aspects of intellectual (IP) law. During the Michigan chapter`s networking event on June 27th...
USPTO Proposes New Procedures to Expand Availability of Claim Amendments During AIA Post Grant Proceedings
On October 29, 2018, the USPTO published a request for comments on proposed procedures designed to make it easier for patent owners to amend claims in challenged patents during inter partes review proceedings (IPR) and other AIA post grant trials. The Office stated that, “The goal of the proposed amendment...
PTAB Designates Two New Informative Decisions Addressing Its Discretion to Deny Review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Based on Prior Examination
The PTAB recently designated two decisions as informative that concern its discretion to deny institution of an IPR/CBM petition. Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), “In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding . . . the Director may take into account whether . . . the same or substantially...
In an en banc decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the appeals court may review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination, in connection with a decision to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, that a petition is not time-barred under...
SAS Institute Inc. v. Lee, No. 16-969 (U.S. May 22, 2017). On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in the first patent case accepted for the October 2017 term. The Court granted certiorari to review whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s practice of determining the patentability of...
2017 was another remarkable year for intellectual property disputes, including IP litigation and proceedings before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Landmark Supreme Court decisions and cases argued, but not yet decided, should cause parties in AIA post grant proceedings to reassess their strategies. In addition, the Federal Circuit’s...
Co-Author, “USPTO Proposes New Procedures to Expand Availability of Claim Amendments During AIA Post Grant Proceeding,” Client Alert, November 2018
Co-Author, “Is Uncle Sam a ‘Person’? Supreme Court Grants Cert to Consider Government Standing in CBM Proceedings,” Blog Post, November 2018
Co-Author, “PTAB Releases Revised AIA Trial Guide,” Blog Post, August 2018
Co-Author, “PTAB Designates Two New Informative Decisions Addressing Its Discretion to Deny Review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Based on Prior Examination,” Client Alert, March 2018
Co-Author, “Federal Circuit Rules That PTAB Rejection of IPR Time-Bar Defense Is Reviewable,” Client Alert, January 2018
Co-Author, “PTAB Designates Two New Informative Decisions Addressing IPR Filing Issues,” Blog Post, January 2018
Co-Author, “Supreme Court To Review PTAB Practice Of Partial Review,” Client Alert, June 2017
Panelist, “Interview with the Chief,” PTAB Judicial Conference, July 2018
Moderator, “Evolving procedural challenges associated with AIA,” Managing Intellectual Property PTAB Forum, May 2018
Presenter, “IP Clinic,” Detroit Fintech Challenge, April 2018
Co-Presenter, “2017 IP Litigation and PTAB Year in Review,” BK Webinar, February 2018