![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/IPWatchdog%20-%202023/assets/images/temp/logo-small@2x.png){kind=logo}
Andrew S. Ehmke
Partner
Haynes and Boone, LLP
Andy Ehmke is a partner with Haynes Boone. He is primary counsel for many high-profile technology companies in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and has been recognized as one of the “Best Performing Attorneys” representing petitioners before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. His experience spans multiple decades, during which he has guided clients through licensing, technology and patent portfolio development and intellectual property litigation and disputes at the Patent Office and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Andy is a member of the firm’s board of directors and serves as the firm’s Chief Information Partner overseeing the firm’s technology and cybersecurity strategies. Andy has a degree in computer science, and has previously worked as an information systems consultant and software developer for hand-held computing devices. His technical areas of experience include software, networking, cloud-based computing and services, mobile devices and computing hardware. Andy continues software development as a hobby, and has co-written and developed Haynes Boone’s proprietary software for tracking, managing, and docketing IPR proceedings at the PTAB.
Recent Articles by Andrew S. Ehmke
Given the various ways the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can exercise discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition (and the corresponding non?appealability of those decisions), ex parte reexamination is becoming an attractive option to challenge patent validity following a decision not to institute. Because a later filed ex parte reexamination is often viewed as a “second bite at the apple,” there were questions as to how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should treat these second attempts at invalidating a patent. For IPRs, the PTAB has used several bases for discretionary denial of a later-filed IPR, but those bases were not being applied to follow-on ex parte reexamination requests. However, in In re Vivint, the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO has the authority to discretionarily deny an ex parte reexamination request under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), i.e., if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”