Andrew T. Dufresne, Ph.D.
- Madison
Notice
Before proceeding, please note: If you are not a current client of Perkins Coie, please do not include any information in this e-mail that you or someone else considers to be of a confidential or secret nature. Perkins Coie has no duty to keep confidential any of the information you provide. Neither the transmission nor receipt of your information is considered a request for legal advice, securing or retaining a lawyer. An attorney-client relationship with Perkins Coie or any lawyer at Perkins Coie is not established until and unless Perkins Coie agrees to such a relationship as memorialized in a separate writing.
Andy helps clients position themselves for success on appeal.
Whether an anticipated dispute, ongoing litigation, or a new engagement on appeal, Andrew Dufresne helps clients protect and advance their interests in patent litigation at the appellate and trial levels. He regularly represents Fortune 100 and 500 companies, smaller and emerging businesses, universities, and several industry and trade groups. He earned a Ph.D. in molecular genetics and microbiology and brings firsthand technical knowledge and experience to matters involving the life sciences. His clients span various technology sectors, including pharmaceuticals, biotech, food science, electronics and computer software, and fitness and sports equipment.
Andy specializes in litigating before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where he has successfully briefed and argued numerous patent cases and has extensive experience with appellate motions and mandamus practice. He also assists clients at the district court and agency levels with strategy, issue preservation, jury instructions, claim construction, dispositive motions, and post-trial briefing. In addition, he has participated in all phases of inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including drafting petitions and other papers, conducting discovery, and presenting oral arguments.
In his active pro bono practice, Andy has successfully represented U.S. military veterans before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Federal Circuit in cooperation with the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program. He has also served as court-appointed appellate counsel for defendants in criminal matters and worked with The Access Project in support of the Rising Scholars Network Clean Slate Program.
Education & Credentials
Education
- UC Berkeley School of Law, J.D.
- Duke University, Ph.D., Molecular Genetics and Microbiology
- Gustavus Adolphus College, B.A., Biology; Chemistry, summa cum laude
Bar and Court Admissions
-
Wisconsin
-
Minnesota
-
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- Supreme Court of the United States
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
- U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Related Employment
- Adjunct Professor, Patent Litigation, Marquette University Law School
Clerkships
- Hon. Alan D. Lourie, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Professional Recognition
Listed among “America’s Leading Lawyer" by Chambers USA for Intellectual Property Litigation, 2025
Recognized by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for Patent Law and Patent Law - Litigation, 2021-2026
Listed in Wisconsin Super Lawyers, Rising Star, 2019
Impact
Professional Leadership
- Federal Circuit Bar Association
Board of Directors, Member
Regional Programs Committee, former Chair
Mock Argument Committee, former Vice Chair
- Intellectual Property Owners Association, Amicus Brief Committee, Member
Professional Experience
Appellate
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Argued on behalf of Micron in a consolidated interlocutory appeal by the patent-assertion entity Longhorn IP after the District of Idaho ordered Longhorn to pay a bond under an Idaho law addressing bad-faith patent assertion. Longhorn disputed the bond and the constitutionality of the Idaho Act. Micron explained why the state law was not preempted and further moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit agreed with Micron and dismissed the appeal. Case Nos. 23-2007, 23-2095; 2025 WL 3672528 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2025)
ZipTop, Inc. v. SC Johnson & Son Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Argued on behalf of SC Johnson, urging the Federal Circuit to uphold a summary judgment of non-infringement in a case involving Ziploc Endurables® reusable silicone containers. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of SC Johnson, concluding that the district court had correctly construed the asserted claims and found no factual dispute that the accused products did not infringe. Case No. 24-1661; 2025 WL 3761765 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 30, 2025)
Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Represented Nintendo and argued on behalf of all appellees in a consolidated appeal from multiple IPRs on a patent relating to software license management. The patentee disputed issues including claim construction, prima facie obviousness, and secondary considerations. The Federal Circuit confirmed the Board’s claim construction and prima facie obviousness rulings and remanded for limited reconsideration of alleged commercial success. Case Nos. 23-1674, 23-1701; 140 F.4th 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
Impact Engine, Inc. v. Google LLC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Argued to defend Google’s victory in a case involving seven patents relating to online advertising. The Federal Circuit held that the district court’s judgment was correct on every front: Most of the asserted claims were invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and summary judgment of non-infringement was warranted for the rest under the means-plus-function construction of a disputed term. Case No. 22-2291; 2024 WL 3287126 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2024)
Cioffi v. Google LLC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Argued the appeal on behalf of Google and persuaded the Federal Circuit to reverse an Eastern District of Texas judgment for plaintiffs who had accused Google’s Chrome web browser of infringing on four patents related to anti-malware technology. The court of appeals concluded that the asserted claims of all four patents were invalid for violating the original-patent/same-invention requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251. Case No. 18-1049; 2023 WL 2981491 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2023)
AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Argued on behalf of the appellant, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and convinced the Federal Circuit to reverse a district court’s construction of a numerical limitation in claims to a pharmaceutical composition for asthma treatment and vacate the judgment of infringement premised on the overruled construction. Case No. 21-1729; 19 F.4th 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
Apple, Inc. v. Vidal
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Represented Google on appeal in an APA challenge to the PTO’s Fintiv test for discretionary denial of IPR institution. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal order in part and remanded for further proceedings on the merits. Case No. 22-1249; 63 F.4th 1 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
Sonos, Inc. v. ITC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Represented Google in an appeal from a favorable final determination by the ITC in a case involving accused audio players. The Federal Circuit affirmed the agency’s non-infringement rulings. Case Nos. 22-1421, 22-1573; 2024 WL 1507605 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2024)
Philips North America, LLC v. ITC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Successfully defended the Commission’s rulings involving two patents that Philips had asserted against Fitbit activity monitors. The Commission held one patent invalid and the other not infringed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Case No. 21-2064; 2022 WL 3131841 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2022)
Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. U.D. Electronic Corp.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Secured summary affirmance of a pretrial judgment rejecting all of the plaintiff’s direct, induced, and contributory infringement theories relating to patents asserted against computer components manufactured outside of the United States. Case No. 21-1856; 2022 WL 1436146 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2022)
In re B.E. Technology LLC
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Represented Google in successfully opposing mandamus petition by B.E. Technology that sought to terminate four IPRs based on allegations of biased decision making by the PTAB. Case No. 22-114; 2022 WL 421186 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2022)
Biogen International GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Won affirmance of a district court ruling that Biogen’s patent claims involving a multiple-sclerosis drug were invalid for lack of adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Case No. 20-1933; 18 F.4th 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Convinced the Federal Circuit that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is entitled to review the patent eligibility of proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review. Case No. 19-1686; 966 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
Nuvo Pharmaceuticals (Ireland), et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Argued on behalf of Mylan in the Federal Circuit over patent rights to naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium tablets (Vimovo®) used to treat the risk of ulcer formation in patients requiring long-term treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court, holding the asserted claims of the two challenged patents invalid. Case No. 17-2473
BTG International Ltd., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Represented Mylan in a complex consolidated appeal concerning district court Hatch-Waxman litigation and related IPR proceedings. The patent at issue claimed methods for treating prostate cancer using abiraterone acetate and prednisone. The Federal Circuit issued a favorable judgment affirming that the PTAB had correctly canceled the asserted claims on obviousness grounds. Case No. 19-1147
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and Allergan, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Represented Mylan in an appeal challenging the PTAB’s ruling that tribal sovereign immunity does not insulate patents from IPR proceedings. The appeal resulted in a favorable decision from the Federal Circuit confirming that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to IPRs. Case Nos. 18-1638, -1639, -1640, -1641, -1642, -1643
Van der Hoeven Horticultural Projects B.V. v. Glass Investment Projects, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Represented patent owner on appeal following an IPR decision upholding challenged claims over the prior art. Obtained summary affirmance upholding favorable judgment on appeal. Case No. 18-2234
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Participated in successful defense of the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants-appellees dismissing the asserted complaint for patent infringement on patent-eligibility grounds. Case No. 17-2051
Digital Media Technologies, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Won affirmance of ruling that held that patent claims on a multimedia system with encrypted content and encrypted licenses were directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of digital rights management. Case Nos. 17-2408, -2409, -2410; 742 F. App’x 510 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
Cousin v. Wilkie
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Represented veteran seeking VA compensation for back disability associated with Korean War-era service in the U.S. Army. Argued before the Federal Circuit on the veteran’s behalf and obtained a precedential judgment reversing the VA’s denial of retrospective benefits. Case No. 17-1971
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co. v. P2i Ltd.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Represented petitioner in a successful IPR challenging claims to electronic devices with protective hydrophobic coatings. The Board instituted a review and found all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Case No. IPR2024-00380; 2025 WL 1090085 (PTAB Apr. 11, 2025)
Fonterra (USA) Inc. v. Arla Foods amba
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Represented patent owner in opposing two IPR petitions targeting patents for denatured whey protein compositions. The Board denied the institution in both cases. Case Nos. IPR2022-00661, IPR2022-00662; 2022 WL 4010593 (PTAB Aug. 31, 2022); 2022 WL 4010594 (PTAB Aug. 31, 2022)
Favored Tech Corp. v. P2i Ltd.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Represented IPR petitioner in challenging a patent that claimed electronic devices with protective hydrophobic coatings. The Board instituted review, and the patent owner elected to file a statutory disclaimer as to every claim. The Board granted an adverse judgment in favor of the petitioner. Case No. IPR2020-01198; 2021 WL 2828619 (PTAB July 7, 2021)
Riddell, Inc. et al. vs. Kranos IP II Corp.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Filed petition and argued on behalf of Riddell in IPR proceeding regarding a patent directed to sports helmet technology. Case settled after oral hearing. Case No. IPR2018-01164
Amazon Digital Services, Inc., et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg SA
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Prepared briefing and argued at the oral hearing on behalf of petitioners in opposition to the patent owner’s motion to amend during IPR proceedings. The motion to amend was denied by the Board in a precedential order. Case No. IPR2017-00948
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Allergan, Inc. and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Represented Mylan in IPR proceedings challenging several pharmaceutical patents and opposing efforts to terminate the IPRs based on tribal sovereign immunity. Case Nos. IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -01131, -013332
*Prior Experience
District Court
Allele Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Represented Allele in suit for infringement of its patented mNeonGreen fluorescent protein technology in the development of Regeneron’s REGEN-COV antibody treatment for COVID-19. Won concessions of patent validity following claim construction and infringement following a summary judgment win on Regeneron’s safe harbor defense. Case settled prior to trial. Case No. 20-cv-08255; 2024 WL 4416811 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2024); 2022 WL 17417291 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2022)
Paltalk Holdings, Inc. v. WebEx Communications, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Represented Cisco as embedded appellate counsel for pre-trial proceedings and trial. Case No. 21-cv-00757
Flypsi, Inc. v. Google LLC
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Represented Google as embedded appellate counsel for pre-trial proceedings and trial. Case No. 22-cv-00031
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Google LLC
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Represented Google as embedded appellate counsel for pre-trial proceedings and trial. Case No. 19-cv-00090
Apple Inc. v. Iancu
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Google in APA challenge to the PTO’s Fintiv standard for discretionary denial of IPR petitions. Case No. 20-cv-06128
Kranos IP Corp. et al. v. Riddell, Inc.
Represented Riddell in successful defense against patent infringement claims relating to sports helmet technologies. Case No. 17-cv-06802
VocalTag Ltd. v. Agis Automatisering B.V.*
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Represented defendant in patent infringement litigation and obtained favorable summary judgment order disposing of all infringement claims. Case No. 13-cv-00612
*Prior Experience
Veterans Benefits
Cousin v. Wilkie
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Represented veteran seeking VA compensation for back disability associated with Korean War-era service in the U.S. Army. Argued before the Federal Circuit on the veteran’s behalf and obtained a precedential judgment reversing the VA’s denial of retrospective benefits. Case No. 17-1971
Cousin v. Wilkie
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Represented veteran seeking VA compensation for back disability associated with Korean War-era service in the U.S. Army on appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and on remand after obtaining a favorable decision from the Federal Circuit. Case No. 15-2175
Reed v. Shinseki*
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Represented veteran in claim for VA disability compensation. Secured remand for further proceedings before the agency and secured a fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Case No. 13-2661
*Prior Experience
