Andy represents a number of beverage companies including those involved in the manufacture and importation of both wines and spirits and non-alcoholic beverages.  Andrew performs the following services for his clients in the beverage industry:  

• worldwide trademark clearance for new products,
• securing trademark registrations 
• preparation of co-packaging agreements
• preparation of supply agreements
• preparation of distribution agreements
• COLAs and FDA prior notice
• CBD products

Representative clients include:

Gio Brands International, LLC, Platinum Brands, LLC,

FKP (Russian Federation),

Enovation Brands 

Enoitalia, s.p.a,

Beverage Brands PLC,

Azzurri Imports, LLC,

Giori, s.p.a;

Al Maidan LLC;

Terra Products, Inc. Evergreen Sweeteners, Inc.

Benoit Valerie Calvet.   

Andrew is an experienced and cost effective litigator. He routinely appears in patent, trademark and copyright matters in courts trhought the country.  His representative litigation experience includes:

• Hazeli v. Mehriran Publishing Co., et al. (D. MD 2015). Mr. Aitken represnted the Plaintff.  After a bench trial, Mr. Aitken obtained a judgment of damages.   

• H&B, Inc.  v. Charles Products, Inc. (KY 2013) Mr. Aitken represented Defendant Charles Products, Inc. in a dispute relating to the marking of childrens' products under regulations of the Consumer Products Safety Commission. Mr. Aitken sucessfuly obtained a summary judgment of no liability.  

• C.R. Daniels v. Naztec International (MD 2011)  Mr. Aitken represents Defendant Naztec International in a patent dispute relating to voting booths. 

•  Trident Products and Services, LLC. v. Canadian Soiless Wholesale, Ltd. and Advanced Nutrients, Ltd. (E.D. Va 2009) Mr. Aitken represents Plaintiff Trident in an action relating to trade secrets and false advertising  in a pending matter involving benefical bacterial used as a soil amendments to increase plant growth.

• Bally Gaming, Inc. v. Kappos (D.C. District of Columbia 2011) Mr. Aitken represents the patentees Pearson and Ringo in a pending matter relating to gaming technologies. The District Court granted the patentees motion to dismiss.  

• Billco International, Inc.  v. Charles Products Inc. (D. Md. 2009).  Mr. Aitken represents Charles Products Inc. in a copyright case relating to private label souvenirs.  

• Linex v. Belkin et al., (E.D.TX 2008). Mr. Aitken represented accused infringer Phoebe Micro, Inc. in patent case relating to wireless technology that implements the 802.11n standard.  Mr. Aitken briefed the claims construction issues and presented oral argument. Mr. Aitken had primary responsibility for the case and is working with co-counsel on the matter.  

• PlaSmart Inc. v. Wincell International, Inc. et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2006).  Mr. Aitken represented the patent owner Wincell International, Inc. in connection with a claim for utility patent infringement relating to an award-winning children’s toy. PlaSmart initiated the action and advanced a claim for trade dress infringement and a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.  PlaSmart’s request for a preliminary injunction on the trade dress claim was denied.  Mr. Aitken was lead counsel in the matter.

•  Karolewicz v. Drummond Press, Inc.,(C.D. Fla. 2008).  Mr. Aitken represented the defendant, Drummond Press, Inc. in patent infringement matter.  Mr. Aitken served as lead counsel and handled all aspects of the case including taking and defending numerous depositions, and briefing numerous discovery motions, oppositions to motions and summary judgment.  After a Markman hearing  and the summary judgment briefing, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss all claims against Mr. Aitken’s client Drummond Press.

• Texas Instruments, Inc v. Powerchip Semiconductor Corp., (S.D.N.Y. 2005).  Mr. Aitken represented Powerchip Semiconductor in this matter which related to an alleged breach of a patent license agreement and a claim for over $150,000,000 in damages.  Mr. Aitken was the lead counsel in the matter and led all aspects of the case including the supervision of extensive discovery efforts.  In this matter he defended numerous depositions in Taiwan, took depositions of Plaintiff’s fact and expert witnesses and defended expert depositions. The case involved more than 100,000 documents which he managed with a team of associates.  After summary judgment briefing was completed, the matter was settled on favorable terms.      

• Voss of Norway v. Enoitalia S.p.a., Platinum Brands, LLC and A.V. Imports, Inc.   (S.D.N.Y. 2006).  Voss filed a trade dress and trademark infringement matter involving its bottle container shape. Mr. Aitken represented the importer, A.V. Imports and the trademark owner Platinum Brands in the matter. This case included multiple depositions, preliminary injunction briefing and oral argument.  Mr. Aitken served as lead counsel for A.V. Imports. The case was settled after co-defendant, Enoitalia, the supplier of the accused products, agreed to a minor redesign of its container.

• Intelligent Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Kanguru Solutions and An Chen Computer Co., Ltd.,  Case No CV05-6474 DSF (JWJx), (C.D. Cal. 2005).  Mr. Aitken represented defendant An Chen Computer Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement matter relating to an invention relating to improvements for duplicating data on computer hard drives.  The case was settled at an early stage and defendant became a suppler for Plaintiff patentee.  Mr. Aitken served as lead counsel.  Mr. Aitken directly negotiated the settlement agreement and supplier agreement.                           

• Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc. and Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action No. 03-CV-4678 (SRC). (N.J.)  In a Waxman Hatch paragraph IV matter, Ortho-McNeil brought suit against Barr Laboratories in response to Barr’s filing an ANDA for Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, an oral contraceptive. Working with a team of attorneys, Mr. Aitken had primary responsibility for the day to day management of this case including the supervision of all aspects of the case.  His responsibilities included supervision of document production and document management, drafting and responding to discovery requests, negotiation and litigation of numerous discovery disputes, preparing fact witnesses for depositions, taking and defending key depositions, retaining experts and working with the experts on expert reports. This matter was eventually settled.

• Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., (2003) (Patent Validity) (N.J.) In a Hatch Waxman paragraph IV matter, Ortho-McNeil brought suit against Barr and asserted a series of patents covering the oral contraceptive Ortho Tri-Cyclen.  Working with a team of attorneys, Mr. Aitken prepared both fact and expert witnesses for depositions, assisted in the drafting of expert reports, prepared witnesses for trial, developed trial strategy, preparing the Markman briefs, and drafting other various motions and briefs.  The matter settled two days before trial was scheduled to begin. Mr. Aitken shared responsibility for the management of the case.

• Confidential (Pharmaceutical patent matter, 2004) Mr. Aitken was involved in a pre-filing investigation with respect to a potential patent infringement claim relating to a  pharmaceutical product. He participated in a presentation of the findings of the  investigation to the client including the general counsel and chief patent counsel of the Fortune 100 pharmaceutical company.  He assisted in developing a strategy of defending the validity of the patent, interviewed and retained numerous experts in anticipation of filing suit and prepared an analysis of various responses to possible patent defenses of inequitable conduct and invalidity.

• Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Company,Case No. 92-3436 (C.D. Cal.). Patent infringement litigation involving Ecolochem’s U.S. Patents 4,556,492 and 4,818,411.  In 2002, serving a co-counsel, Mr. Aitken prepared for and conducted a damages trial including the preparation of pretrial motions and briefs, examined witnesses and cross-examined witnesses over four-weeks.  He also prepared extensive post trial briefings to the court with his co-counsel. In this matter the district court had previously summarily invalidated the asserted claims of the patents based on new prior art, but the Federal Circuit reversed as to one of the patents.  M. Aitken also assisted with the trial of the liability phase of the case in 1998 and was on the brief to the Federal Circuit.   During the liability phase, Mr. Aitken also examined and cross-examined witnesses and argued motions in addition to his participation in all other aspects of discovery relating to the proceedings.  In that matter, following Markman proceedings and a 15-day bench trial, the trial judge on remand found the ‘411 claims infringed and willfully infringed, but invalid. As mentioned above the Federal Circuit again reversed the trial court and Ecolochem proceeded to trial on damages.  In 2002, after the four week damages trial, the parties reached a settlement wherein the defendant agreed to an eight-figure payment.

• Meridian Diagnostics, Inc. v. Apollo et al., (E.D. Ohio 2001) Mr. Aitken represented Defendant Apollo and individual employees in a matter that involved trade secrets involving a diagnostic test for H. pylori and a covenant not to compete.  The court entered a preliminary injunction against some defendants after four-day evidentiary hearing.  Mr. Aitken served as co-counsel in the matter.

• A.V. Imports v. Spirits International, N.V., (TTAB).  Mr. Aitken represented A.V. Imports, Inc, and its successor A.V Brands, Inc. which seeks cancellation of the trademark registration RUSSKAYA for vodka on the grounds of abandonment. After trail on teh merits, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found in favor of Mr. Aitken's client. 

• Pete’s Brewing Company v. Beverage Brands (UK) Limited, and East Coast Beverage Corp., d/b/a Collins International, SA-02-CA-0558-EP (W.D. Texas 2002); (ED Mass)  Mr. Aitken represented defendant Beverage Brands Ltd. in a trademark infringement action regarding the Pete’s Wicked Ale marks.  In this matter, Mr. Aitken, serving as lead counsel, successfully had a default judgment set aside and then was able to transfer the case from the Western District of Texas to the District of Massachusetts on forum non-convenes grounds.  The matter was settled during the discovery phase of litigation in Massachusetts.

• A.V. Imports, Inc. v. DuFour & Co. et al.,(D. N.J. 2000) This action involved a Lanham Act and trade dress infringement claim relating to wine bottles. Mr. Aitken  represented A.V. Imports, Inc. and served as lead counsel.   The matter was settled after discovery and before trial on favorable terms to the client along with a substantial settlement payment.

• Mattox v. TriStar Products Co.; (E.D. Mich. 2000)  This was a patent infringement matter regarding an exercise device.  Mr. Aitken represented Tristar Products Co. and served as lead counsel.  The parties settled early during the discovery phase of litigation.

• Velodyne Acoustics, Inc. v. Paradigm Electronics, Inc., Case No. C-98-3553, (N.D. Cal. 1998).  This was a patent infringement litigation involving two U.S. patents owned by Velodyne for high-end loudspeakers.  Mr. Aitken represented accused infringer Paradigm Electronics, Inc. and served as lead counsel.  This matter was settled before the discovery phase was completed.

• Alameda Films, S.A. de C.V., et al. v. H. Jackson Shirley, III, et al.;Civil Action No. 98-1523 (D.Ct. D.C. 1999). Copyright infringement litigation involving rights in restored term of copyright in hundreds of motion picture films owned by 24 Mexican film producers. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Mr. Aitken and co-counsel were retained to obtain a transfer to the U.S. District Court in Houston, Texas, and were successful in doing so in 1999.

• Benchmark Entertainment, L.C. v. Seidel Amusement Co.,Case No. 97-6390 (S.D. Fla. 1998). Patent infringement litigation involving Benchmark’s U.S. Patent No. 5,385,347 for an arcade amusement game. Following a five-day jury trial, the jury found Benchmark’s patent valid and infringed. Mr. Aitken represented Benchmark and served as lead counsel in this matter.  The defendant then settled before the damages phase of the proceedings.

• Porex Technologies Corp. and Porex Scientific, Inc. v. Labcon, North American, Inc.,Civil Action No. 1 96-CV-0157(N.D. Ga. 1998).  This was a patent infringement litigation where Mr. Aitken, serving as lead counsel, asserted an infringement claim on behalf of Porex Technologies Corp.   The asserted patent, U.S. No. 5,364,595 was directed to pipette tips used in connection with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) laboratory techniques.  After discovery was completed and following the court’s denial of defendants motion for summary judgment on liability, the litigation was settled on terms favorable to Porex.

• Arrowhead Industrial Water, Inc. v. Ecolochem, Inc.,No. 87-C-3839 (N.D. Ill, 1995), 1995 WL 515519.  Patent infringement litigation involving Ecolochem’s U.S. Patents 4,556,492 and 4,818,411 for a deoxygenation process. The suit was filed as a declaratory judgment action by Arrowhead in 1987. Following Judge Norgle’s rejection of Arrowhead’s summary judgment motion for invalidity, Arrowhead agreed to a consent judgment of validity and an injunction against further infringement, with a seven-figure damages payment to Ecolochem.  Mr. Aitken represented Ecolochem and served as co-counsel. 

• Ecolochem, Inc. v. Mobile Water Technology Co., 690 F.Supp 778 (E.D. Ark. 1988), aff’d, Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 88-1550 (February 24, 1989), etc. Patent infringement litigation brought by Ecolochem regarding its U.S. Patent 4,556,492.  Following a bench trial, Senior Circuit Judge Henley found the patent valid and infringed.  After Federal Circuit affirmance, Judge Henley denied Mobile’s motion to set aside the verdict (again affirmed on appeal). Judge Henley awarded $500,000 in damages to Ecolochem after a five-day damages trial in 1991.  Mr. Aitken assisted with the representation of Ecolochem. 

• Sashco, Inc. v. Red Devil, Inc., Civil Action 93-N-253 (D.Colo.). This was a Patent infringement litigation involving Sashco’s U.S. Patents 4,776,458 and 4,863,014, for clear caulk cartridges and tubes. Mr. Aitken participated in an evidentiary hearing where the Colorado court found that Red Devil had not violated a previous consent decree. Subsequently, on Red Devil’s summary judgment motion for non-infringement, the court found that Red Devil did not infringe Sashco’s patents. Mr. Aitken represented Red Devil as co-counsel. 

• Vanmoor v. Walmart Stores, Inc., Builders Square, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Red Devil, Inc., Civil Action No. 97-6907 (S.D. Fla. 1998). Patent infringement litigation involving Vanmoor’s U.S. Patent No. 5,582,331 for a caulk cartridge. Judge Dimitrouleas summarily found that Vanmoor’s patent was invalid. The judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.  Mr. Aitken, serving as lead counsel, represented Red Devil and Red Devil’s customer, Home Depot.  The Federal Circuit appeal was argued by counsel for one of the co-defendants. 

• Ward v. McDonald, Civil Action No. WMN 97-1224 (MD. 1998). This was a copyright infringement action involving a short story of Pamela Ward which was adapted by McDonald as a screenplay and which was performed on Broadway.  Kevin Bacon was the leading actor in the show.  After the close of discovery, a settlement favorable to Ward was reached.  Mr. Aitken represented copyright owner Pamela Ward and served as lead counsel.