![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/IPWatchdog%20-%202023/assets/images/temp/logo-small@2x.png){kind=logo}
Andrew Schwerin
Associate
Saul Ewing LLP
Andrew Schwerin is an Associate with Saul Ewing. He represents clients in patent and trade secret litigation on both the plaintiff and defense sides of these disputes. Outside of his litigation work, Andrew counsels clients on their IP strategy. Andrew has represented clients in connection with a range of technologies including computing and memory storage, medical devices, biologics, and small molecule drugs.
Andrew’s knowledge of patent matters is informed by his experience as a term clerk for the Honorable Christopher J. Burke in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, one of the busiest patent venues in the United States. In this role, Andrew drafted pretrial decisions for cases involving computer, software, drug and medical device technologies.
Recent Articles by Andrew Schwerin
What the USPTO’s Reexamination Remand for HID Means for Estoppel, Timing and Strategy
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a significant Decision on Remand on Monday, April 27, 2026, clarifying when estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) attaches and—critically—what it means to “request” a proceeding “before the Office.” The ruling arises from an increasingly common set of circumstances—HID had initially filed an inter partes review (IPR) against CPC Patent Technologies’ U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705, and subsequently requested ex parte reexamination requests of that same patent. Monday’s decision clarifies that a party is estopped from “requesting” ex parte reexam at the moment the IPR final written decision issues when the USPTO has yet to order ex parte reexam.
Beyond Patents: Trademark Protection for Products Covered by Utility Patents
The purpose behind the prohibition of functional trademarks is so that the trademark holder does not unfairly stifle legitimate competition by precluding its competitors from using functional aspects of that product in their own, competing products…. Trademark owners nonetheless can still protect non-functional aspects of products also covered by a utility patent, at least for the time being. The Supreme Court in TrafFix did not foreclose the possibility that ornamental or arbitrary elements of a product features could constitute protectable trade dress despite concurrent utility patent protection. Recent cases show some successes by trademark plaintiffs stating claims for trade dress infringement despite their product being disclosed in a utility patent, at least at the pleadings stage.