Andrew K. Beverina
Senior Associate
Bar Membership Other Than Virginia
Tel (703) 412-6420

Andrew K. Beverina

Senior Associate

ANDREW K. BEVERINA, an intellectual property litigation lawyer practicing in the firm’s Litigation and ITC Litigation practice groups, has extensive experience representing plaintiffs and defendants before the International Trade Commission (ITC), in district court, and at the Federal Circuit. Mr. Beverina’s clients include several Fortune 500 companies. 

In addition to litigating on behalf of his clients, Mr. Beverina advises foreign and domestic companies on all aspects of intellectual property protection, providing infringement and validity opinions, conducting due diligence and resolving matters through alternative dispute resolution.

Mr. Beverina has worked with companies throughout the United States, Japan, Germany and France to develop intellectual property protection strategies for a variety of technologies including pharmaceuticals, automotive glass, automotive electronics, semiconductors, cosmetics, photocopier equipment and textile dyeing. 

Mr. Beverina is the author of “KSR’s Effect on Patent Law,” which appeared in the Michigan Law Review in October 2007. In 2009, he was named a “Rising Star” in Intellectual Property Law in Super Lawyers magazine. He is involved in a pro bono group that assists the Federal Public Defenders Service for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Representative Matters

Obtained an $11 million judgment for Saint-Gobain for infringement of claims covering windshields and methods of installation. The court doubled the $11 million damages and awarded attorney fees based on the jury’s finding that Xinyi willfully infringed the patents under the strict “objectively reckless” Seagate standard. Saint-Gobain Autover USA, Inc. v. Xinyi Glass North America, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36129 (N.D. Ohio, April 13, 2010)

Represented defendant Isuzu Motors, Ltd., obtaining a dismissal of all infringement claims against Isuzu. George E. Fulhorst, d/b/a SAF-T-NET, USA v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., et al., (E.D. Tex.).

Represented plaintiff Ricoh Corp. in a case relating to photocopier toner bottles. The judge granted summary judgment of infringement and validity. Ricoh Co. v. Katun Corp., 380 F. Supp. 2d 418  (D. N.J., Aug. 2, 2005) and 486 F. Supp. 2d 395 (D. N.J., May 3, 2007).

Successfully petitioned to revive five patent applications, which had been abandoned for nearly a decade, for a major Japanese electronics manufacturer. A previous attorney failed to prosecute the applications, leaving them abandoned without the client’s knowledge or consent.

Assisted in a reexamination on behalf of one of the world’s largest suppliers of dyes that resulted in the allowance of commercially valuable new claims related to claims that had been invalidated by the Federal Circuit.

Performed a due diligence analysis for a major cosmetics and skin care company for the proposed acquisition of a patent portfolio relating to novel skin therapies.

“Rising Star” in Intellectual Property Law, Super Lawyers magazine (2009)

ALJ Essex Grants-in-Part and Denies-in-Part Non-Party Broadcom’s Motion to Quash Subpoena in Certain Communications Equipment (337-TA-817)
Tuesday, June 05, 2012

On May 29, 2012, ALJ Essex issued Order No. 13, granting-in-part and denying-in-part non-party Broadcom Corporation’s motion to quash or limit a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum in Certain Communication Equipment, Components Thereof,...

ALJ Pender Issues Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond in Certain Wireless Communication Devices (337-TA-745)
Wednesday, May 30, 2012

On May 21, 2012, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of the Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bond (“RD”) (dated May 9, 2012) in Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers, and Components Thereof...

To Quash Or Not To Quash – That Is One Of The Questions (Among Many) To Ask When Served With A Third-Party Subpoena From The ITC
Friday, May 25, 2012

The U.S. International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) popularity as a venue for deciding intellectual property disputes continues to rise.  Even if a company is not named as a respondent, the increasing number of investigations at the ITC bring an increased possibility of being served with third-party subpoenas.  While no entity looks forward to...

All Blogs