AITKEN LAW OFFICES -- Intellectual Property Law
Phone (301) 537-3299
Andrew C. Aitken represents small businesses and individuals in connection with their intellectual property needs.
Mr. Aitken's practice is directed to the preparation and prosecution of utility patents, design patents, trademarks and copyrights. In addition, Mr. Aitken has an extensive track record of successfully litigating intellectual property and other commercial disputes throughout the country.
Mr. Aitken makes a commitment to learn the technology of each of his clients as well as how the technology fits with the client's overall business strategy. In addition to intellectual property work, Andy also provides counsel and advice on raising capital, contracts, employment issues and corporate governance.
Andy Aitken has particular expertise in connection with the amusement game industry, hardware and tools, toys, electro-mechanical inventions, business methods, software and the beverage industry.
How Can We Help
Inter Partes Proceedings
Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings
Patent and Trademark Litigation
Cease and Desist Letters
On February 6, 2017 Mr. Aitken prevailed in a contract dispute relating to publishing services contract. After a bench trial before the U.S. District Court for the Distict of Maryland, the court entered judgment for Mr. Aitken's client.
On September 7, 2016 in a patent case relating to liquid cooling systems for integrated circuits, Mr. Aitken and his team prevailed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit found a justiciable controversy, reversed the trial court and remanded the case back to the Eastern District of Virgina. Mr. Aitken represented Asia Vital Components, Ltd. who had sought a declaratory judgment of patent invaldity and non-infringement.
On February 19, 2016 the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied H&B's motion to Alter or Amend the Summary Judgment Mr. Aitken had secured for his client in December 2015. H&B's claim that Mr. Aitken's client had failed to properly mark certain children's products in accordance with the Consumer Products Safety Commission was denied.