Andrew B. Russell

I'll research this attorney before drafting. Let me start with searches on the tracked case and his professional background.

Let me dig into the specific case representation and the attorney's background.

Specialty / focus. Based on the single tracked matter, Andrew B. Russell's patent docket to date sits in the life-sciences and diagnostics space rather than in the Wi-Fi/standards or NPE-heavy software areas: the case involves ultra-sensitive immunoassay technology, specifically Quanterix's Simoa® single-molecule assay platform and its use to quantify the tau protein and pTau 217 in blood plasma for Alzheimer's disease and brain-injury diagnostics. That is a chemistry/biotech-adjacent subject matter (assay methods, fluid-sample preparation, biomarker quantification) rather than mechanical or consumer-electronics litigation. Because the tracked dataset contains only one appearance, no broader technology pattern can be established.

Side preference. The tracked data show a purely defense-side profile: 0 plaintiff-side appearances and 1 defendant-side appearance, for Quanterix Corporation — an operating diagnostics company, not an NPE/PAE. Note that the posture is mixed in substance: Quanterix is the nominal defendant in Fujirebio's Delaware declaratory-judgment action while simultaneously acting as the patent owner, having counterclaimed for infringement of its own U.S. Patent No. 11,275,092. So the role is best described as defending an operating company's patent portfolio, with counterclaim assertion, rather than either a pure defense practice or plaintiff-side monetization work.

Firm context. The tracked appearance lists Foley & Lardner LLP with the role of Counsel. I could not locate a firm-published attorney profile for "Andrew B. Russell" at Foley & Lardner through the searches I ran, and no prior-firm history for him is verifiable from the sources available. Caution on disambiguation: there is an Andrew E. Russell at Shaw Keller LLP in Delaware (IP litigator; ex-law clerk to Judge Christopher J. Burke; computer/semiconductor focus) and an Andrew E. Rawlins at Foley & Lardner; neither appears to be the same attorney, and neither should be conflated with the subject of this profile.

Notable case and outcomes. The one tracked matter is Fujirebio Diagnostics, Inc. v. Quanterix Corp., No. 1:25-cv-00659 (D. Del., Judge Gregory B. Williams), filed May 28, 2025 — a declaratory-judgment action by Fujirebio (with Fujirebio Europe N.V.) concerning the '092 tau-assay patent, met by Quanterix's infringement counterclaim. Public docket records show the case was stayed in March 2026 pending a settlement agreement and dismissed with prejudice in April 2026, with each side bearing its own costs and no merits ruling on validity or infringement. Two caveats on sourcing: (1) the docket entries I could retrieve identify Quanterix's counsel as Cooley LLP and Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell, with no Foley & Lardner appearance visible; (2) the parallel PTAB proceeding (IPR2025-01060, Fujirebio as petitioner, Quanterix as patent owner) was contested on discretionary-denial grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and does not show Mr. Russell's name in the materials retrieved. His involvement in the IPR, if any, is unverified.

PTAB / IPR experience and bar/education. There is no verified evidence that Mr. Russell appears regularly in IPR/PGR proceedings — the tracked record is a single district-court matter, and I could not confirm him on any PTAB filing. Bar admissions, education, and prior employment for this attorney could not be reliably sourced and are therefore omitted rather than guessed. Overall, the profile rests on one data point; any characterization beyond "defense-side, life-sciences/diagnostics patent litigation at Foley & Lardner" would overstate the record.