Aitken Law Offices

Aitken Law Offices

Legal Services

Andy Aitken's practice is primarily focused on the protecton and defense of intellectual property. Andrew C. Aitken has been successfully securing foreign and domestic patents and trademarks for his clients for more than 20 years.

He has litigated dozens of complex patent, copyright and trademark disputes in federal courts throughout the country, including in New York, Florida, New Jersey, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Texas, Virginia and Maryland.

Services include:

▪ Markman hearings

▪ Patent appeals before the Board of Patent Appeals

▪ Patent reexamination experience

▪ Trademark opposition proceedings

▪ Trademark cancellation proceedings

▪ Intellectual property counseling

▪ Negotiation of patent and trademark license agreements

▪ Patent drafting and prosecution

▪ Trademark preparation and prosecution

▪ Cease and desist letters

▪ Copyright counseling

▪ FTC issues Civil Investigation (C.I.D.)

▪ Consumer Product Safety Commision compliance

▪ Made in America claims

▪ Inter Partes Proceedings

▪ Non Disclosure Agreements

▪ Jury and bench trial experience in connection with patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret disputes

Food & Beverage Industry Expertise

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.

Enovation Brands Inc.

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

Valle Reale s.r.l.

Intellectual Property Litigation

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

Mr. Aitken represents plaintiff Bullseyebore that alleged patent, trademark, copyright and false advertising claims against more than 20 defendants. On February 12, 2024 the court granted Bullseybore motion for preliminary injunction.

Mr. Aitken represented the plaintiff in a patent infringement matter. The case was settled at early stage of the litigation.

Mr. Aitken serves as local counsel in a patent infringement case.

Mr. Aitken joined Ninbot’s litigation team that won partial summary judgment with respect to his client’s redesigned products. Plaintiff’s claims for design patent infringement and their demands for more than 3.5 Million in damages was rejected by the jury and the jury’s six figure damage award is presently on appeal.

Mr. Aitken represented Coollid Corp. in a commercial case against his client’s insurance carrier. The matter was favorably settled before trial.

Mr. Aitken represented the defendant in the matter that related to a commercial dispute relating tot 5100k) submission. The matter was favorably settled before trial.

Mr. Aitken represented Enovation brands in a trademark dispute. The matter settled on favorable terms.

Mr. Aitken represnted the Plaintff. After a bench trial, Mr. Aitken obtained a judgment of damages

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.

Mr. Aitken represents Defendant Naztec International in a patent dispute relating to voting booths.

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.

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.

Mr. Aitken represents Charles Products Inc. in a copyright case relating to private label souvenirs

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Aitken Law Offices
P.O. Box 1810
Wheaton, MD
phone: (301)-537-3299
fax: (240)-491-9892